{"id":4417,"date":"2007-05-14T17:21:57","date_gmt":"2007-05-14T17:21:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2007\/05\/claims_against_goldman_sachs_f_1"},"modified":"2021-09-20T15:41:27","modified_gmt":"2021-09-20T20:41:27","slug":"claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Claims Against Goldman Sachs for Alleged Fannie Mae Fraud Must Be Filed Individually"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\tThe U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed class action claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. stemming from two Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit–or REMIC–deals with Fannie Mae.<\/p>\n

Judge Richard Leon said that the plaintiffs–Fannie Mae investors\u2013-failed plead a case which involved “direct acts” of securities fraud by Goldman. (In a court system friendly to those accused of securities fraud, claims are not allowed for aiding and abetting Federal Securities violations and class action claims involving securities fraud can no longer be filed under state laws.) <\/p>\n

However, this court’s decision does not prevent members of the former class action from now seeking their own claim against Goldman in court or arbitration. Clients of Goldman who purchased shares of Fannie Mae during this period would likely have the stronger claims. Such claims could include aiding and abetting, conspiracy and other claims under state laws which were not allowed in the class action. Fortunately, statutes of limitations on individual claims are usually preserved while a class action case is pending in court. <\/p>\n

Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed class action claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. stemming from two Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit–or REMIC–deals with Fannie Mae. Judge Richard Leon said that the plaintiffs–Fannie Mae investors\u2013-failed plead a case which involved “direct acts” of securities fraud by Goldman. (In a court system […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3804,3754,3753],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action-lawsuits","category-goldman-sachs-1","category-mortgage-backed-securities"],"yoast_head":"\nClaims Against Goldman Sachs for Alleged Fannie Mae Fraud Must Be Filed Individually — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 14, 2007<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed class action claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. stemming from two Real Estate Mortgage — May 14, 2007\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Claims Against Goldman Sachs for Alleged Fannie Mae Fraud Must Be Filed Individually — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 14, 2007\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed class action claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. stemming from two Real Estate Mortgage — May 14, 2007\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Claims Against Goldman Sachs for Alleged Fannie Mae Fraud Must Be Filed Individually — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 14, 2007","description":"The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed class action claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. stemming from two Real Estate Mortgage — May 14, 2007","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Claims Against Goldman Sachs for Alleged Fannie Mae Fraud Must Be Filed Individually — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 14, 2007","twitter_description":"The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed class action claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. stemming from two Real Estate Mortgage — May 14, 2007","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Claims Against Goldman Sachs for Alleged Fannie Mae Fraud Must Be Filed Individually","datePublished":"2007-05-14T17:21:57+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:41:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/"},"wordCount":459,"articleSection":["Class Action Lawsuits","Goldman Sachs Group, Inc","Mortgage Backed Securities"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/","name":"Claims Against Goldman Sachs for Alleged Fannie Mae Fraud Must Be Filed Individually — Investor Lawyers Blog — May 14, 2007","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-14T17:21:57+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-20T20:41:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed class action claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. stemming from two Real Estate Mortgage — May 14, 2007","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/claims-against-goldman-sachs-f-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Claims Against Goldman Sachs for Alleged Fannie Mae Fraud Must Be Filed Individually"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-19f","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4417","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4417"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4417\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20189,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4417\/revisions\/20189"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}