the part of defendants to scrutinize the loans included in their securitizations more closely — but such reports were insufficient to trigger the Securities Act’s statute of limitations. Until such time they did or with diligence should have “discovered” otherwise, the GSEs were entitled to rely on defendants’ assertion that the loans that underlay these particular securities complied with the guidelines set out in the offering materials. The public reporting discussed in the SAC is relevant to plaintiffs claims only insofar as it negates any effort by defendants to maintain that they exercised due diligence or reasonable care to ensure that the loans included in the securitizations were as described. See In re Morgan Stanley Info. Fund Sec. Litig., 592 F.3d 347, 359 n. 7 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Whatever questions the G'SEs might have
recognizing that section 11 provides several due diligence defenses available to nonissuer defendants see 15 usc  77kb and section 12a2 contains a reasonable care de fense id  77i a2 recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations holding trustee liable for failure to discharge his duty to watch the investment with reasonable care and diligence holding that section 12a2 did not apply to a private placement memorandum which was subject to a section 42 exemption recognizing implied obligation to use reasonable diligence