Email Facebook Twitter

Exclusive: Hardman & Co call the lithium market: is a change in trend happening?
Tower Resources identify 18 million barrels of contingent reserves worth $118M in Cameroon

Finance & Stock Market News

UPDATE 1-Goldman thwarts fraud class action tied to Abacus CDO--US appeals court

Fri, 12th Jan 2018 20:24

(Adds details from decision, paragraphs 10-11)

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, Jan 12 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court said a shareholder lawsuit accusing Goldman Sachs Group Inc of fraudulently claiming to put client interests before its own when creating risky subprime securities before the financial crisis, including a collateralized debt obligation known as Abacus, cannot proceed as a class action.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said on Friday a lower court judge imposed too high a burden on the Wall Street bank to show that its alleged conflicts of interest and misleading statements had no impact on its stock price.

While the 3-0 decision permits shareholders to again seek class certification, it may now be easier for Goldman to convince U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty, who had certified a class action in September 2015, not to let the plaintiffs sue as a group.

Thomas Dubbs, a lawyer for the shareholders, said he was "confident" a class action would again be certified. Goldman had no immediate comment.

Shareholders from February 2007 to June 2010 claimed to lose more than $13 billion because Goldman had in regulatory filings and public comments overstated its ability to manage conflicts.

They said Goldman did this while concealing short positions that the bank or hedge fund manager John Paulson made in four subprime mortgage CDOs: Abacus 2007 AC-1, Anderson Mezzanine Funding 2007-1, Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, and Timberwolf.

Shareholders sued after news about federal enforcement activity hurt Goldman's stock, including when the Securities and Exchange Commission brought civil fraud charges in April 2010 against Goldman and vice president Fabrice Tourre over Abacus.

In certifying a class action, Crotty had said Goldman "failed to conclusively sever th link" between its statements and its stock price.

But in Friday's decision, Circuit Judge Richard Wesley, citing a more recent ruling involving Barclays Plc, said Goldman had only to show it more likely than not that its alleged misrepresentations did not affect the stock.

Wesley also said Crotty erred in deciding not to consider evidence offered by Goldman of 34 dates prior to 2010 when news reports of its alleged conflicts did not hurt its stock price.

He expressed no view on whether such evidence would suffice for Goldman to meet its burden of proof.

The SEC has estimated that Paulson made about $1 billion by betting against Abacus.

Goldman settled with the SEC for $550 million in July 2010, without admitting wrongdoing. A federal jury found Tourre liable in August 2013, and a judge later ordered him to pay more than $856,000, including a fine.

The case is Arkansas Teachers Retirement System et al v Goldman Sachs Group Inc et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 16-250. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Tom Brown)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018. Click For Restrictions -

Related Shares:

Back to Finance News

Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at
FREE Member Services
- Setup a personalised Watchlist and Virtual Portfolio.
- Gain access to LIVE real-time Regulatory News (RNS).
- View more Trades, Directors' Deals, and Broker Ratings.
Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at

Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.