Goldman Investors Demand Probe Into Involvement in $4.5B Bribery, Money-Laundering Scandal
According to the letter, Goldman made more than $580 million for advising the company at the heart of the scandal over the course of 12 months, a rate that was 200 times the typical fee for such transactions. Now the company expects to spend $1.9 billion more than it had initially reserved to defend legal matters related to the scandal, according to the 27-page correspondence.
May 14, 2019 at 04:52 PM
4 minute read
An attorney representing a group of Goldman Sachs shareholders has demanded the board investigate the New York-based investment bank's involvement in a $4.5 billion bribery and money-laundering scheme tied to Malaysia's sovereign wealth fund.
The Delaware plaintiffs firm Grant & Eisenhofer sent a May 3 letter on behalf of two Cleveland-based pension funds, calling for an internal investigation and possible litigation against current and former Goldman directors for failing to prevent the scandal, which stemmed from three bond deals the firm facilitated on behalf of 1Malaysia Development Berhad in 2012.
The 27-page correspondence detailed how Goldman bankers Tim Leissner and Roger Ng allegedly worked with a high-profile Malaysian financier and the country's prime minister to divert proceeds from deals and used the laundered money to enrich themselves and bribe officials in Malaysia and Abu Dhabi.
Leissner last year pleaded guilty to money laundering charges and was ordered to forfeit $43.7 million for his role in the scandal. Ng, who was arrested in Malaysia, was extradited earlier this month to the United States to face similar charges, according to media reports.
In the partially redacted letter, Grant & Eisenhofer director Nathan A. Cook said that the board members missed “conspicuous red flags” and neglected their duties of due care and good faith in failing to prevent the violations.
“The company's orchestration of the three problematic bond offerings is a consequence of the board's failure to ensure there were adequate systems in place to detect and prevent this massive fraud,” Cook wrote.
According to the letter, Goldman made more than $580 million for advising 1MDB over the course of 12 months, a rate that was 200 times the typical fee for such transactions. The company, it said, now expects to spend $1.9 billion more than it had initially reserved to defend legal matters related to the scandal and had suffered “incalculable reputational damage” as a result of its involvement.
According to the letter, Goldman could assert civil claims for fraud and violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against Leissner, Ng and Low Taek Jho, the young Malaysian financier also at the heart of the scandal. It also named past Goldman officials, including former CEO and board member Lloyd Blankfein and former Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn, as potentially liable for breaching their duties to stockholders.
The investigation, the letter said, should be headed by independent and disinterested directors, with the assistance of outside counsel.
“Following the investigation, the stockholders demand that Goldman commence appropriate legal action against current and former Goldman directors, officers, and employees, as well as third parties, identified as being responsible for the mismanagement and other related misconduct,” the letter stated. “The legal proceedings should bring claims for breaches of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and of care; aiding and abetting those breaches; unjust enrichment; RICO claims, and other violations of the law.”
Michael DuVally, a Goldman spokesman, said Tuesday that “the letter will receive appropriate attention.” He did not respond to other questions regarding the scandal and whether the firm planned to comply with the stockholder demand.
A spokesman for Grant & Eisenhofer said the letter was based on public records and confidential materials obtained through a request for documents under Delaware's corporate code. As of Tuesday morning, Goldman had not yet responded to the shareholder demand, he said.
Such demands are often a precursor to stockholder derivative litigation, which is filed against officers and directors on behalf of a company. Under Delaware law, plaintiffs typically concede the independence of a majority of the board when submitting a presuit demand but can challenge whether directors were acting out of their own self-interest if the demand is rejected.
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 AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
SEC Issues $6.75M Fine Against Financial Firm Led by Trump's Choice to Lead Commerce Dept.
3 minute readTrending Stories
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