Did Goldman Sachs hide conflicts of interest in subprime securities?

Question

Accepted Answer

Goldman Sachs Shareholders Can Pursue Class Action Over Alleged Hiding of Conflicts in Subprime Securities

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. must face a class action lawsuit from shareholders who allege the bank concealed conflicts of interest when it created subprime securities prior to the 2008 financial crisis. Shareholders contend that the bank's general statements about its business practices, including commitments to client interests and integrity, were misleading and impacted its stock price. The legal proceedings have involved significant court decisions, including guidance from the US Supreme Court on how to assess the impact of such statements on stock prices.
Shareholders Allege Concealment of Conflicts in CDO Creation

Shareholders have accused Goldman Sachs of obscuring its role in packaging and selling collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) that the bank allegedly intended to fail. The lawsuit claims that Goldman allowed favoured clients to secretly bet against these securities. This practice, according to the plaintiffs, led to a decline in Goldman's stock price once the truth emerged. The case represents an 11-year-old legal battle, with shareholders ready to proceed to trial.
Court Rules Generic Statements Could Mislead Investors

US District Judge Paul Crotty ruled that Goldman Sachs's general statements, such as client interests "always come first" and "integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business," were not too generic to mislead investors. The judge stated that these statements could reinforce misconceptions about the bank's practices. Goldman Sachs had argued that such broad statements were common among large corporations and lacked the specificity to influence stock prices, but the court found this argument unconvincing, noting the ubiquity of such statements if they had no effect.
Supreme Court Guidance on Impact of Generic Statements

The case has previously reached the US Supreme Court, which provided guidance on how lower courts should evaluate whether generic corporate statements can affect stock prices. The Supreme Court indicated that expert testimony and "a good dose of common sense" could be used in this determination. Applying this precedent, Judge Crotty determined that Goldman Sachs failed to demonstrate that its alleged misstatements had no impact on its stock price whatsoever.
Previous Settlement Over CDO Concealment

In a related matter, Goldman Sachs reached a US$550 million settlement in 2010 with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. This settlement resolved charges that the bank concealed the role of a favoured client in creating a specific CDO, Abacus 2007-AC1. It was revealed that this client profited approximately US$1 billion by betting against the CDO.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Did Goldman Sachs hide conflicts of interest in subprime securities?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends