Goldman Sachs will go to court over investor fraud
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York City ruled that Goldman Sachs' dismissal of a lawsuit by investors must go to court. The ruling requires Goldman Sachs to engage in a class-action lawsuit in which the investment firm is accused of defrauding investors in shady deals occurring before the...
January 24, 2014 at 04:28 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York City ruled that Goldman Sachs' dismissal of a lawsuit by investors must go to court. The ruling requires Goldman Sachs to engage in a class-action lawsuit in which the investment firm is accused of defrauding investors in shady deals occurring before the 2008 financial crisis.
The deals included $2 billion of debt sold to the investors now taking Goldman to court who claim that they were sold risky debt linked to subprime mortgages, and that Goldman had been betting against those mortgages.
Goldman's dismissal of the claims tried to assure the judge that they were ”rife with differences, idiosyncrasies and conflicts” according to Reuters. At the core of the argument is Goldman's apparent desire for the claims to be pursued separately from one another — to which Marrero responded that the costs of which would raise judicial resources and be too costly.
Since the financial crisis of 2008, many banks and financial firms have come under fire for doing just what Goldman did — selling risky bets on mortgage-backed securities when the banks themselves were betting against the securities. And this is not the first time Goldman has been brought to court over mortgage-linked debt. The much-remembered 2010 case in which Goldman settled with the SEC for $550 million over misleading investors in a case over subprime mortgages rings a similar bell. The case settled the claims that Goldman sold the securities and misled investors as the housing market slid drastically. It was the largest penalty ever paid by a Wall Street firm — although a drop in the bucket for Goldman Sachs itself.
The ruling by Marrero will bring Goldman into the spotlight once more for the same fraud. Whether it will be as easy as an SEC settlement remains to be seen.
Further reading:
U.S. District Judge
The deals included $2 billion of debt sold to the investors now taking Goldman to court who claim that they were sold risky debt linked to subprime mortgages, and that Goldman had been betting against those mortgages.
Goldman's dismissal of the claims tried to assure the judge that they were ”rife with differences, idiosyncrasies and conflicts” according to Reuters. At the core of the argument is Goldman's apparent desire for the claims to be pursued separately from one another — to which Marrero responded that the costs of which would raise judicial resources and be too costly.
Since the financial crisis of 2008, many banks and financial firms have come under fire for doing just what Goldman did — selling risky bets on mortgage-backed securities when the banks themselves were betting against the securities. And this is not the first time Goldman has been brought to court over mortgage-linked debt. The much-remembered 2010 case in which Goldman settled with the SEC for $550 million over misleading investors in a case over subprime mortgages rings a similar bell. The case settled the claims that Goldman sold the securities and misled investors as the housing market slid drastically. It was the largest penalty ever paid by a Wall Street firm — although a drop in the bucket for
The ruling by Marrero will bring Goldman into the spotlight once more for the same fraud. Whether it will be as easy as an SEC settlement remains to be seen.
Further reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250