- MENU
- HOME
- SEARCH
- WORLD
- MAIN
- AFRICA
- ASIA
- BALKANS
- EUROPE
- LATIN AMERICA
- MIDDLE EAST
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Argentina
- Australia
- Austria
- Benelux
- Brazil
- Canada
- China
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- India
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Korea
- Mexico
- New Zealand
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Russia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Taiwan
- Turkey
- USA
- BUSINESS
- WEALTH
- STOCKS
- TECH
- HEALTH
- LIFESTYLE
- ENTERTAINMENT
- SPORTS
- RSS
- iHaveNet.com
Rob Silverblatt
News that the
To be sure, the case is bad news for Goldman, which has come under fire recently for its handling of mortgage-backed securities during the downturn. Even so, experts agree that the
"I do think it's winnable, but it's a very complex case," says Jacob Zamansky, the founder of the New York-based financials and securities law firm
At issue are mortgage-backed securities that Goldman packaged and sold to its clients. Goldman then bet against those very same securities, turning a hefty profit when the housing market tanked.
According to the
But Goldman, along with Paulson and other select clients, believed that the bonds were doomed to fail, the
"Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party," SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami said in a statement.
Shortly afterward, Goldman retaliated against the charges in a statement of its own. "The
Still, Brian Smiley, a securities lawyer with the Atlanta-based firm Smiley, Bishop & Porter, says that purchasers of the bonds had a right to know about their origins. "If you go to a brokerage firm and you take advice from the brokerage firm ... you have every right and reason to believe that it is their best and most disinterested advice. And if they're betting the other way with their own money, it's a pretty good indication that it wasn't," he says.
The stakes, of course, are high for Goldman, but this case is perhaps an equally important test for the beleaguered
"This is a very major case," says Zamansky. "I think it will be very significant, and it will also be a test for the
The implosion of the housing market has long been fodder for lawsuits, with investors claiming that they had been misled about how risky the investments were.
"The problem with those lawsuits is you'd have to show that the defendant knew something more about the riskiness of them than anyone else did," says Adam Pritchard, a securities law professor at the
But this case is different. "The heart of this case is the conflict of interest," says Zamansky. As a result, it's more about whether Goldman should have notified investors than it is about how risky the mortgages were. "It really doesn't have anything to do with the riskiness," says Pritchard. As a result, he says that the
Still, establishing the conflict is easier said than done, and it remains to be seen how thoroughly the
WORLD | AFRICA | ASIA | EUROPE | LATIN AMERICA | MIDDLE EAST | UNITED STATES | ECONOMICS | EDUCATION | ENVIRONMENT | FOREIGN POLICY | POLITICS
United States: Can SEC Beat Goldman Sachs? | Zach Miners