Goldman, Sachs & Co. : [CDO Offerings]: Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Ltd., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Corp., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Ltd., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Corp.

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 & Co. : [CDO Offerings]: Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Ltd., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Corp., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Ltd., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Corp. Summary: According to a press release dated October 4, 2010, the complaint alleges that the Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and New York common law in structuring, offering and selling to plaintiff and other investors the Hudson CDO Securities. More specifically, plaintiff alleges that in a classic case of “heads we win, tails you lose,” the Defendants failed to disclose to investors both that the Hudson CDO Securities were structured by Defendants such that they were doomed to lose value, and that Goldman would profit from its own short positions when the Hudson CDO Securities did lose value. The securities issued by the Hudson 1 CDO reportedly suffered their first ratings downgraded in early September of 2007; by the end of 2007, at least $280 million of the securities were downgraded; and by at least mid-2008, the Hudson 1 CDO’s AAA-rated securities had been downgraded to junk status. In addition, certain principal of the Hudson 1 CDO securities was reportedly paid off in or about April and May of 2009, with investors in several of the tranches losing millions of dollars, as alleged more fully in the complaint.

Similarly, by the end of 2007, at least $144 million of the securities issued by the Hudson 2 CDO had been downgraded. On August 20, 2008, $286 million of the securities issued by the Hudson 2 CDO were further downgraded by Standard & Poor’s.

On December 07, 2010, an Order Consolidating Any Subsequently-Filed Related Cases, Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Approving Lead Plaintiff's Choice Of Counsel was issued by the Court.

On February 4, 2011, an amended complaint for violations of securities laws was filed by the lead plaintiffs against the defendants.

On March 21, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6211
Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Goldman, Sachs & Co.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	GS
COMPANY WEBSITE:	www2.goldmansachs.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Dodona I, LLC, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 10-CV-07497
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Barbara S. Jones
DATE FILED: 10/01/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START:	CLASS PERIOD END:
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net Frydman LLC 18 East 48th St., 10th Floor , New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 212.355.9100, (fax) 212 355 8988 , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/01/2010
[Proposed] Order Consolidating Any Subsequently-Filed Related Cases, Appointing Lead Plaintiff And Approving Lead Plaintiff's Choice Of Counsel
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 12/07/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/07/2010

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Dodona I, LLC, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 10-CV-07497
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 02/04/2011	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START:	CLASS PERIOD END:
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws And New York Common Law
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/04/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/07/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Other		Date on the document: 07/29/2011
Decision And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/21/2012
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/21/2012

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

�