Goldman legal chief defends bank's actions after SEC fraud charge
The co-general counsel of Goldman Sachs has strongly defended his company, telling investors that the suit against the Wall Street giant took him by surprise, reports The Am Law Daily. Speaking in a conference call on Goldman's first quarter earnings report, Gregory Palm said his legal department spent the past 18 months talking and providing records to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but that the agency did not notify the company that it was filing suit last Friday (16 April).
April 21, 2010 at 07:51 AM
3 minute read
The co-general counsel of Goldman Sachs has strongly defended his company, telling investors that the suit against the Wall Street giant took him by surprise, reports The Am Law Daily.
Speaking in a conference call on Goldman's first quarter earnings report, Gregory Palm said his legal department spent the past 18 months talking and providing records to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but that the agency did not notify the company that it was filing suit last Friday (16 April).
Palm said Goldman was "disappointed" by the charge, and defended the investment bank's integrity and business principles. The record shows the charge was unfounded, he said, adding that "we dispute the respective view of the facts in this case and the applicable law."
In the civil suit filed last week, the SEC charged Goldman and one of its vice presidents with defrauding investors. The complaint alleges that the company mis-stated and omitted key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages, as the US housing bubble was beginning to burst in 2007.
The SEC said the company marketed a complex collateralised debt obligation (CDO) to investors without telling them that hedge fund Paulson & Co, that was betting against the mortgage market, had played a key role in selecting the portfolio.
While investors lost about $1bn (£650m) on the CDO, Paulson earned about $1bn by betting against it, the complaint states.
Palm has been GC at Goldman – a position he now shares with Esta Stecher – since 1992 when he joined the bank from US law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.
During Tuesday's call, Palm repeatedly argued that the deal mainly involved two sophisticated institutional investors who jointly selected the portfolio. Both had the opportunity to fully examine the underlying assets, he said.
During a question and answer period, some investors asked about whether the major loser in the deal knew that Paulson was taking the short position. Palm replied that while Goldman brought the investors together, the company did not know what the losing party was thinking.
He apparently evaded a direct question about whether Goldman told the other party of Paulson's short interest by saying that the SEC complaint did not allege any incident where Goldman intentionally misled anyone.
In other answers, Palm said the SEC has looked generally at Goldman's mortgage deals but would not say if any other deals are under investigation at this time. He did say that there have been no conversations with the Department of Justice.
He said the company lost $100m (£65m) on its own investments in the deal. Asked why Goldman even invested, he indicated the deal was not closing until Goldman agreed to take a slice.
The Am Law Daily is the website of The American Lawyer, Legal Week's US sister title.
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 AllReport Spotlights Bullying, Harassment Facing In-House Lawyers
Australian Gambling Machine Giant Hires Insider as CLO, Relocates Her to Las Vegas
Status Driven With Unpredictable Fees: What Private Equity Clients Really Think About Their Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
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