{"id":5395,"date":"2012-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-12-03T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/institutionalinvestorsecuritiesblog.blawgcloud.com\/2012\/12\/sec_antifraud_lawsuit_against"},"modified":"2022-05-19T13:42:23","modified_gmt":"2022-05-19T18:42:23","slug":"sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against\/","title":{"rendered":"SEC’s Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won\u2019t Be Reinstated, Says District Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s request to reinstate its antifraud claim against Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) executive Fabrice Tourre for alleged misstatements related to a collateralized debt obligation connected to subprime mortgages. Judge Katherine Forrest said that the facts did not offer enough domestic nexus to support applying 1934 Securities Exchange Act Section 10(b). To do so otherwise would allow a 10(b) claim to be made whenever a foreign fraudulent transaction had even the smallest link to a legal securities transaction based in the US, she said, and that this is \u201cnot the law.\u201d The case is SEC v. Tourre<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The SEC had sued the Goldman and its VP, Tourre, over alleged omissions and misstatements connected with the ABACUS 2007-AC1\u2019s sale and structuring. This 2007 CDO was linked to subprime residential mortgage-backed securities and their performance. The Commission claimed Goldman had misrepresented the part that Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, had played in choosing the RMBS that went into the portfolio underlying the CDO and that Tourre was primarily responsible for the CDO deal\u2019s marketing and structuring.<\/p>\n

In 2010, Goldman settled the SEC\u2019s claims by consenting to pay $550M, which left Tourre as the sole defendant of this case. Last year, the court dismissed one of the Section 10(B) claims predicated on $150 million note purchases made by IKB, a German bank, because of Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.<\/em> In that case, the US Supreme Court had found that this section is applicable only to transactions in securities found on US exchanges or securities transactions that happen in this country. The court, however, did let the regulator move forward under Section 10(b) in regards to other ABACUS transactions, and also the 1933 Securities Act\u2019s Section 17(a).<\/p>\n

However, following Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Facet <\/em>in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit earlier this year found that \u201c\u201cirrevocable liability is incurred or title passes\u201d within the US securities transaction may be considered domestic even if trading did not occur on a US exchange, the SEC requested that the court revive the Section 10(b) claim. Although IKB was the one that had recommended the CDO to clients, including Loreley Financing, it was Goldman that obtained the title to $150 million of the notes through the Depository Trust Co. in New York. Goldman then sent the notes to the CDO trustee in Chicago before the notes were moved from the DTC to Goldman’s Euroclear account to Loreley’s account. The Commission said that, therefore, transaction that the claim was based on had closed here.<\/p>\n

Noting in its holding that Section 10(b) places liability on any person that employs deception or manipulation related to the selling or buying of a security, the court said that the Commission was trying to premise the domestic move of the notes\u2019 title from the CDO trustee to Goldman at the closing in New York as a \u201chook\u201d to show liability under this section. The court pointed out that while the title of the transfer that took place in New York was legal and it wasn\u2019t until later that the alleged fraud happened. The \u201cfraud was perpetuated upon IKB\/Loreley, not Goldman\u201d so \u201cno fraudulent US-based\u201d title transfer related to the note purchase is \u201csufficient to sustain a Section 10(b) and rule 10b-5 claim against Tourre\u201d for the transaction.<\/p>\n

More Blog Posts:<\/strong>
\nGoldman Sachs Ordered by FINRA to Pay $650K Fine For Not Disclosing that Broker Responsible for CDO ABACUS 2007-ACI Was Target of SEC Investigation<\/a>, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010<\/p>\n

Goldman Sachs Settles SEC Subprime Mortgage-CDO Related Charges for $550 Million<\/a>, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 12, 2010<\/p>\n

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

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s request to reinstate its antifraud claim against Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS) executive Fabrice Tourre for alleged misstatements related to a collateralized debt obligation connected to subprime mortgages. Judge Katherine Forrest said that the facts did not […]<\/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":[3742,3752,3947,3864],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-collateralized-debt-obligation","category-financial-firms","category-goldman-sachs","category-subprime-mortgage"],"yoast_head":"\nSEC's Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won\u2019t Be Reinstated, Says District Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — December 3, 2012<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s request to reinstate its antifraud — December 3, 2012\" \/>\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\/sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"SEC's Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won\u2019t Be Reinstated, Says District Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — December 3, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s request to reinstate its antifraud — December 3, 2012\" \/>\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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SEC's Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won\u2019t Be Reinstated, Says District Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — December 3, 2012","description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s request to reinstate its antifraud — December 3, 2012","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\/sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"SEC's Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won\u2019t Be Reinstated, Says District Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — December 3, 2012","twitter_description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s request to reinstate its antifraud — December 3, 2012","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against\/","name":"SEC's Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won\u2019t Be Reinstated, Says District Court — Investor Lawyers Blog — December 3, 2012","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-12-03T06:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-19T18:42:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has refused the Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s request to reinstate its antifraud — December 3, 2012","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/sec-antifraud-lawsuit-against\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SEC’s Antifraud Claim Against Goldman Sachs Executive Fabrice Tourre Won\u2019t Be Reinstated, Says District Court"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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-1p1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5395","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=5395"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5395\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28229,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5395\/revisions\/28229"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}