Appellate Circuit

Goldman Sachs Owns the U.S. Supreme Court And That’s Not Good For Freedom, Liberty and Property Rights

The SCOTUS plaintiffs accused Goldman Sachs of unlawfully hiding conflicts of interest when creating risky subprime securities.

U.S. Supreme Court tosses class action ruling against Goldman Sachs

JUN 21, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 21, 2021

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System,

June 21, 2021, SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Goldman Sachs Group Inc in its bid to avoid an investor class action lawsuit accusing the bank of hiding conflicts of interest when creating risky subprime securities before the 2008 financial crisis.

The justices threw out a decision by the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year that had allowed Goldman shareholders including the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to sue as a group under a federal investor protection law.

The plaintiffs accused the company of unlawfully hiding conflicts of interest when creating risky subprime securities.

In directing the 2nd Circuit to reconsider the matter, the justices said the lower court had failed to properly assess whether the bank’s statements that the investors had called misleading were too generic to have affected its stock price. The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, gives Goldman another chance to avoid the class action in which the plaintiffs said they lost more than $13 billion due to the bank’s conduct.

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and other pensions that purchased Goldman shares between February 2007 and June 2010 filed suit, accusing the company and three former executives of violating an anti-fraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a related SEC regulation. The plaintiffs said that the bank’s fraudulent statements kept its stock price artificially high.

The case had been closely followed for clues as to how the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, would view shareholder class actions. Businesses often seek to limit the ability of plaintiffs to collectively sue in order to avoid the higher damages often awarded in such litigation.

The plaintiffs said that when they bought Goldman shares they relied upon the bank’s statements about its ethical principles and internal controls against conflicts of interest, and its pledge that its “clients’ interests always come first.”

Goldman argued that these “aspirational” statements were too vague and general to have had any impact on the stock price.

The case stemmed from Goldman’s sale of collateralized debt obligations including Abacus 2007 AC-1, which it assembled with help from hedge fund manager John Paulson.

In 2010, Goldman reached a $550 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve charges that it cheated Abacus investors by concealing Paulson’s role, including how he made a $1 billion profit by betting the sale of collateralized debt obligations would fail.

The plaintiffs said that the share price would have been lower if the truth had been known about the company’s conflicts of interest.

The 2nd Circuit last year upheld a federal judge’s decision to let the plaintiffs sue as a group and rejected one of the company’s arguments that generic statements can never impact a stock price.

Rewind 2008: Reservation of Rights, Claiming Insurance Funds and Then Taking Homes Illegally

The Debtors acknowledge the rights of all parties with respect to the 2007-08 Blended Tower. They reserve any and all rights they have.

Rewind: The FCIC Report of 2011 Records the Greed of Bankers and the Criminal Theft of Citizens Homes

The profound events of 2007 and 2008 known as the financial crisis or the great recession and blame is documented in the fcic report (2011).

1MDB Sue Deutsche Bank While DOJ Quietly Stands Down from it’s Lawsuit Against the German-American Bank of Wall St

The state-owned investment fund 1MDB is suing companies including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Deutsche Bank AG who helped 1MDB raise more than $1 billion in 2014.

Goldman Sachs Owns the U.S. Supreme Court And That’s Not Good For Freedom, Liberty and Property Rights
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top