GS Mortgage Securities Corporation : Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed Certificates

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation : Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed Certificates Summary: According to a press release dated December 11, 2008, class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of GS Mortgage Securities Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed Certificates pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued during 2007 and 2008.

The complaint charges GS Mortgage, certain of its officers and directors and the issuers and underwriters of the Certificates with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. GS Mortgage engages in securitizing mortgage assets and related activities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on January 31, 2007, defendants caused a Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC in connection with and for the purpose of issuing billions of dollars of Certificates. The Certificates were issued pursuant to Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statement. The Certificates were supported by pools of mortgage loans.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement included false statements and/or omissions about: (i) the underwriting standards purportedly used in connection with the origination of the underlying mortgage loans; (ii) the maximum loan-to-value ratios used to qualify borrowers; (iii) the appraisals of properties underlying the mortgage loans; and (iv) the debt-to-income ratios permitted on the loans. As a result, the Certificates sold to plaintiff and the Class were secured by assets that had a much greater risk profile than represented in the Registration Statement. In this way, defendants were able to obtain superior ratings on the tranches or classes of Certificates, when in fact these tranches or classes were not equivalent to other investments with the same credit ratings.

By early 2008, the truth about the performance of the mortgage loans that secured the Certificates began to be revealed to the public, increasing the risk of the Certificates receiving less absolute cash flow in the future and the likelihood that investors would not receive it on a timely basis. The credit rating agencies also began to put negative watch labels on the Certificate tranches or classes, ultimately downgrading many. As an additional result, the Certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid by plaintiff and the Class and the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be received than the Registration Statement/Prospectus Supplements represented.

On February 6, 2009, a similar class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System and similarly situated purchasers of GS Mortgage Securities Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed Certificates pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued during 2006. The class includes purchasers of the following Certificates: GSAMP Trust 2006-S2, Series 2006-S2; GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-3, Series 2006-3; and GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-2, Series 2006-2.

On May 15, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed by the plaintiff in this matter. On November 11, 2009, a Second Amended Complaint was filed with the court in this action. On March 31, 2010, a Third Amended Complaint amending the previous amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs in this matter against the defendants.

On October 14, 2010, the Court issued an Opinion granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for violation of Section 11 of the Federal Securities Laws. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the opinion. The motion was denied on November 17, 2010.

On December 9, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment. The motion was denied on March 3, 2011. On June 10, 2011, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum granted the unopposed motion to enter judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 58(d). On July 6, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. The appeal is currently pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6189
Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	GS Mortgage Securities Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	GS
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.gs.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. GS Mortgage Securities Corp., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-10783
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 12/11/2008	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/31/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/31/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint for Violation of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/11/2008
Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund's Motion For Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Lead Plaintiff's Selection Of Counsel
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 02/09/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/20/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. GS Mortgage Securities Corp., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-10783
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
DATE FILED: 03/31/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/31/2007	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/11/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Third Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/ Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 206.749.5544, (fax) 206.749.9978, info@csgrr.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Complaint For Violation Of §§11, 12 And 15 Of The Securities Act Of 1933
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/15/2009
Second Amended Complaint For Violation Of §§11, 12 And 15 Of The Securities Act Of 1933
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/09/2009
Third Amended Complaint For Violation Of §§11, 12 And 15 Of The Securities Act Of 1933
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/31/2010
Opinion
Type: Other		Date on the document: 10/15/2010
Amended Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/10/2011
Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 07/06/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/07/2011

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

�