Cases

790 F.Supp.2d 147 (2011) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. and Fabrice Tourre, Defendants. No. 10 Civ. 3229(BSJ)(MHD). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 10, 2011. *149 Andrew Matthew Calamari, Cheryl J. Scarboro, David J. Gottesman, James Andrew Kidney, Jason M. Anthony, Ken

WINTER, Circuit Judge: Andrew Roth appeals from Judge Oetk-eris dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of his derivative action on behalf of Leap Wireless International, Inc. (“Leap”). He seeks to hold the Goldman Sachs Group and its wholly owned subsidiary Goldman, Sachs & Co. (collectively, “Goldman”) liable under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (“Exchange Act”)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge: Nine years ago, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced its much-heralded “Global Research Analyst Settlement” with ten leading investment banks. The resulting consent judgments sought, inter alia, to compensate aggrieved investors, untangle investment banking and research, and establish an investor education f

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SARIS, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On June 7, 2000, Dragon Systems, Inc. (“Dragon”), a company that revolutionized *301speech recognition technology, merged into Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. (“L & H”). Within months, the public disclosure of a fraud at L & H rendered its sto

*507 DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge. Lead Plaintiff Dodona I, LLC, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated1 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), assert federal and state fraud-based claims against defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS & Co”), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman,” and t

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JAMES C. FRANCIS IV, United States Magistrate Judge. In this putative class action, the plaintiffs allege that their employers, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (collectively, “Goldman Sachs”), engaged in a pattern of gender discrimination against female professional employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) GARY J. AGUIRRE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1872 (ESH) ) SEC

DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge. By letter dated May 14, 2015, nonparty Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) (“BYAFM”) moved this Court for leave to intervene (Dkt. No. 218) for the limited purpose of modifying the Protective Order dated July 18, 2012, that was filed in this action (Dkt. No. 90 (“Dodona Protective Order”)). In its June 3, 2015 Decision and Order, the Court di

661 F.3d 914 (2011) PT Pukuafu INDAH; PT Tanjung Sera Pung; Leonard L.J. Young; PT Lebong Tandai; Gideon Minerals U.S.A., Inc., Plaintifs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; Mary L. Schapiro; Export Import Bank of the United States; James H. Lambright; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.C.; James Nelson Lane; New Canaan Society, Defendants, Newmont Mining Corp., Defend

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes; before the Court on Defendant Goldman, Sachs & Co.’s Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), filed September 30, 2014 (Doc. 27)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on March .5, 2015. The primary issue are: (i) whether Plaintiff Presbyterian Healthcare Services’ claims ‘arise out of its

22-484 Ark. Tchr. Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2022 (Argued: September 21, 2022 | Decided: August 10, 2023) Docket No. 22-484 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WEST VIRGINIA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT BOARD, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS

Opinion BANKE, J. I. Introduction Often, it is the federal courts, applying federal law, that wrestle with claims of cross-state securities fraud involving a nationally listed stock. Here, plaintiffs of various states allege defendants, securities firms headquartered on the East Coast, v

11‐5227‐cv(L) United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2012 6 7 (Argued: February 8, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2014) 8 9 Docket Nos. 11‐5227‐cv

11‐5227‐cv(L) United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2012 6 7 (Argued: February 8, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2014) 8 9 Docket Nos. 11‐5227‐cv

785 F.Supp.2d 394 (2011) H. Cristina CHEN-OSTER; Lisa Parisi; and Shanna Orlich, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. and the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendants. No. 10 Civ. 6950 (LBS) (JCF). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 28, 2011. *397 Adam T. Klein, Esq., Cara E, Greene, Esq., Jennifer L. Liu, Esq., M

Filed 11/25/14 Unmodified opinion attached CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE OVERSTOCK.COM, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A135682 v. GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. et al.,

DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. Plaintiff Dodona I, LLC (“Dodona”) brings this suit on behalf of a putative class of investors in two securities offerings led by defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS & Co”), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman”), Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Ltd. (“Hudson 1 Ltd.”), Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Corp. (“Hu

MEMORANDUM & ORDER WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge: This action arises from the devaluation and downgrade of a mortgage backed Credit Default Obligation (“CDO”) known as Davis Square Funding VI (“Davis Square”). Plaintiff Landesbank BadenWürttemberg (“Landesbank”) sues Goldman Sachs & Co. (“Goldman”) and TCW Asset Management Company (“TCW,” together, “Defendants”) for common law frau

Manzanet-Daniels and Clark and, JJ., dissent in a memorandum by Clark, J., as follows: Flaintiff has adequately alleged justifiable reliance, inasmuch as the documentary evidence established that plaintiff performed an exercise of reasonable due diligence. I would therefore affirm the order of the motion court denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. ACA Financial Guaranty Corp., plaintiff herein, issued a financi

Manzanet-Daniels and Clark and, JJ., dissent in a memorandum by Clark, J., as follows: Flaintiff has adequately alleged justifiable reliance, inasmuch as the documentary evidence established that plaintiff performed an exercise of reasonable due diligence. I would therefore affirm the order of the motion court denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. ACA Financial Guaranty Corp., plaintiff herein, issued a financi