 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. : Auction Rate Securities Summary: According to a press release dated April 18, 2008, on April 18, The New York Times reported that New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is investigating how auction rate securities were marketed to municipalities and public entities, and his office has subpoenaed 18 banks that underwrote and brokered auction rate securities, including Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. In addition, securities regulators from nine other states have formed a task force investigating how banks disclosed the risks of auction failures to investors, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, working with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has initiated an inquiry into sales practices in the auction rate securities industry.
The Complaint charges Goldman Sachs with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning auction rate securities caused those securities to be overvalued and artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Goldman Sachs provides investment banking, securities, and investment management services to corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals worldwide. The Complaint alleges that defendants represented to investors that auction rate securities (also known as auction rate preferred stock, variable rate preferred securities, money market preferred securities, periodic auction rate securities and auction rate bonds) were equivalent to cash or money market funds, and highly liquid investments suitable for short-term investing. Defendants knew, but failed to disclose to investors, material facts about auction rate securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, but actually were complex, long-term financial instruments with 30-year maturity dates or no maturity at all; (ii) that auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because the auction market was artificially supported and manipulated by various broker-dealers to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; and (iii) that auction rate securities would become illiquid as soon as the broker-dealers stopped maintaining the auction market.
On February 13, 2008, approximately 87% of all auctions of auction rate securities failed when all major broker-dealers refused to continue to support the auctions. As a result of the withdrawal of support by all of the major broker-dealers, the market for auction rate securities collapsed, leaving the holders of these auction rate securities with no commercially reasonable means of liquidating the investments defendants offered and sold as a suitable alternative to money market funds and other short-term cash management vehicles.
On April 9, 2008, in a 10-Q filing with the SEC, Goldman Sachs acknowledged it has received requests for information from "various governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations relating to certain auction products...and the related recent failure of such auctions." The New York Attorney General also is investigating how banks brokered auction rate securities and how they decided to allow some auctions to fail in February while supporting others.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6211
Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | GS |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.gs.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| David M. Milch, et al. v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 4/15/2008 | ||
| US District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 4/16/2008 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top