Current Lawsuits Against Goldman Sachs

One effect of all the media attention on Goldman Sachs because of the Senate Report on the financial crisis is that it may attract more lawsuits than can be handled by the $3.4 billion that GS has set aside for such matters. Some suits are described below.

In an article in Bloomberg's Businessweek by Lindsay Fortado, Cazar Search Ltd. says it was not paid by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s UK unit and is suing . Cazar said it introduced Mirek Urbanski to Goldman Sachs as a tentative employee who later was hired by GS but GS said Cazar was not entitled to a fee.

In an article by Susanne Craig , DealBook, Marvell Technology, a semiconductor company, is suing Goldman Sachs for forcing them to sell shares in their own company during the financial crisis. Goldman Sachs said that an SEC rule governing stocks used for margin made the sale necessary. The lawsuit says, "Goldman forced its clients to unnecessarily liquidate their holdings through forced margin calls, only to repurchase these same shareholdings for accounts owned by Goldman and its related hedge funds."

Creditors of bankrupt Capmark Financial Group, as reported in Bloomberg by Steven Church, want to sue Goldman Sachs for $96 million. Judge Sontchi will consider allowing the suit which claims Goldman Sachs used their insider position to collect $96 million from Capmark. The money is meant to go to lower-ranking creditors.

Finally, Eric Johnston in BusinessDay (The Sydney Morning Herald), sums up another of Goldman Sachs's troubles which may presage more headaches in the future:

NAB eyes Goldman lawsuit
by Eric Johnston, BusinessDay, smh

NATIONAL Australia Bank is believed to be considering legal action against its one-time house broker Goldman Sachs after a US Senate report found the bank was apparently misled when it was sold an exotic security that quickly turned toxic.

Senior NAB executives yesterday were reviewing the bank's legal position following a wave of revelations contained in a report on the financial crisis by the US Senate that draws on internal documents and private communications of bank executives and regulators.

The 650-page report, Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse released this week reveals detailed accounts of questionable business practices and investment banks riddled with conflicts of interest in the lead-up to the 2008 finance market implosion.

Specifically, the report outlined how Goldman marketed to NAB a $US80 million tranche of a collaterised {sic} debt obligations, a structured asset-backed security known as Hudson.

While Goldman was selling the securities it did not disclose it was taking substantial bets against Hudson, under which the investment bank would make large profits the more the securities fell in value.

NAB lost on the investment, but it got off lightly compared with Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley, which made the largest investment, taking $US1.2 billion of the super senior portion of the same CDO.

''Goldman constructed Hudson as a way to transfer its … risk to the investors who bought Hudson securities,'' the US Senate report found.

''When marketing the Hudson securities, Goldman misled investors by claiming its investment interests were aligned with theirs, when it was the sole short party and was betting against the very securities it was recommending,'' it found.

In a statement, Goldman Sachs said: ''While we disagree with much of the report, we take seriously the issues explored by the subcommittee.''

Read more of the article here