 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
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.
On December 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, dismissing without prejudice claims against certain defendants.
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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| 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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| 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 | ||
| Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 12/14/2012 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 12/17/2012 | ||
| 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