Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. - Securities Class Action

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

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated April 26, 2010, a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman” or the “Company”) (NYSE:GS) between October 15, 2009 and the time it was publicly revealed on April 16, 2010 that the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) had sued Goldman (the “Class Period”) in connection with its misconduct relating to the formation and sale of ABACUS 2007-AC1, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

Specifically, the complaint charges Goldman and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Goldman is a financial holding company that provides global banking, securities and investment management services in the United States and internationally.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) the Company had, in violation of applicable law, not fully disclosed the facts and circumstances concerning the formation and sale of the ABACUS 2007-AC1 deal to investors such that it had engaged in misleading conduct; (ii) the Company had, in fact, bet against its clients and constructed collateralized debt obligations that were likely, if not designed, to fail; and (ii) the Company had received a Wells Notice from the SEC about the ABACUS transaction but failed to inform shareholders of this fact.

After the market opened on April 16, 2010, it was revealed that Goldman’s U.S. broker-dealer, GS&C, had been sued by the SEC “for making materially misleading statements and omissions in connection” with ABACUS 2007-AC1. As news of Goldman’s misconduct reached the market, Goldman stock immediately plummeted $24.05, declining from $184.27 per share on April 15, 2010 to close at $160.70 per share on April 16, 2010.

The plaintiffs have filed several motion to consolidate and appoint lead plaintiff. These motions are currently pending before the Court.

On March 25, 2011, the Court entered the Order signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty consolidating several actions under In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:10-cv-03461- PAC. According to the Order, the Clerk of Court is further ordered to list the following as lead plaintiffs: Pension Group, consisting of the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group as lead plaintiffs. It is further that the Clerk of Court list the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels for the class. On July 25, 2011, a Consolidated Class Action Amended Complaint was filed. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on October 6, 2011.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6211
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Prop. & Casualty)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	GS
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www2.goldmansachs.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Ilene Richman, et al. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 10-CV-03461
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Paul A. Crotty
DATE FILED: 04/26/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/15/2009	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/16/2010
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/26/2010
Memorandum And Order Re: Securities Litigation
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 03/25/2011

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 10-CV-03461
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 07/25/2011	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/15/2009	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/16/2010
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway, New York, NY, 10005 (voice) 212.907.0700, (fax) 212.818.0477, info@labaton.com Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/18/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Howard Sorkin, et al. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/26/2010
Class Action Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Tikva Bochner, et al. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/30/2010

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

�