Goldman Faces Lawsuits Over $15.8 Billion in Mortgages

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

Goldman faces lawsuits over $15.8 billion in mortgages

By Lauren Tara LaCapra
Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:18am EST

(Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc faces lawsuits over $15.8 billion worth of mortgage securities, the bank said in a regulatory filing on Wednesday, a more than 30-fold increase from the amount disclosed three months earlier.

The aggregate figure, which is up from $485 million previously, does not represent how much money Goldman management estimates it may lose on the litigation. Goldman lifted that estimate of "reasonably possible" losses to $2.6 billion from $2 billion.

The bigger dollar figures come as investors in mortgage-backed bond deals have raced to take legal action or enter settlement negotiations before statutes of limitations expire, and as investors continue to worry about banks' exposure to big lawsuits.

Goldman also added three European financial firms to a list of parties that have threatened to sue it, a more fulsome disclosure than some of its peers.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/11/us-goldman-lawsuit-f-idUSTRE7AA44M20111111

[Citizen Worker]

1. GS has nothing to worry about. If GS does not prevail in court or congress fails to enact

retroactive protections the Treasury department and the Federal Reserve will just arrange another bailout. Nothing at all to worry about, GS.

[russspeakeasy]

2. Here's the final verdict. "GS, you are guilty and owe the govt

billions of dollars and if you don't pay, we will hold our breath until you do".

[neoconn]

3. Normally I would agree with you...

But with whats going on in the world today........The conglomerates are watching what they are doing for not wanting to be the entity that breaks the camels back. The powers of the movement can be shown by looking at what BOA did with the 5$ debit fee. Powerful...



"The real way to suppress greed is to take way the money"
My Dad.

[Philosopher King]

4. They are probably not very concerned about it--they have friends in high places.

BARACK OBAMA (D)- Top Contributors

University of California-------------------$1,648,685
Goldman Sachs--------------------------$1,013,091
Harvard University-------------------------$878,164
Microsoft Corp-----------------------------$852,167
Google Inc---------------------------------$814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co------------------------$808,799
Citigroup Inc------------------------------$736,771
Time Warner--------------------------------$624,618
Sidley Austin LLP--------------------------$600,298
Stanford University------------------------$595,716
National Amusements Inc--------------------$563,798
WilmerHale LLP-----------------------------$550,668
Columbia University------------------------$547,852
Skadden, Arps et al------------------------$543,539
UBS AG-------------------------------------$532,674
IBM Corp-----------------------------------$532,372
General Electric---------------------------$529,855
US Government------------------------------$513,308
Morgan Stanley-----------------------------$512,232
Latham & Watkins---------------------------$503,295

[quaker bill]

5. Something a bit off

My guess is that a public institution like the "University of California" did not contribute 1.65 million dollars. My guess is that people who list "University of California" as their employer have given 1.65 million dollars in total. The same would go for "US Government".

I work for a public agency and have to provide the name of my employer when I contribute, and I am pretty sure I am not the only person with the agency that does. Totaled and listed in this way, the list would suggest that my agency contributed. First, my agency is prohibited by statute from making such contributions. Second the agency is run by right wing republican appointees, so if they could and did contribute, it would not go to the President.

This form of flawed analysis has been around since 2008, enough already.

The lawsuit is not government suing Goldman, it is one group of the 1% suing another group of the 1%. The lawyers get rich and money moves from one sector of the 1% to another, sometimes a little of it sloshes over the edge and accidentally falls to the 99%, after fees and expenses are deducted.

It is a good thing when they sue each other as it takes energy away from the overall effort to rip off the rest of us. Sometimes it goes well enough that one group of the 1% puts another group of the 1% out of business, which leaves fewer of them to deal with.

[fasttense]

6. Thanks Quaker Bill for the truth.

I always wondered how some of those contribution groups listed for a candidate could legally be allowed to give such large amounts, even with Citizen United making corporations people.

I agree with you about the 1% eventually eating each other up. If they can't do it through a rigged and flawed justice system, they will start wars to knock off each other. They are nothing more than organized crime syndicates that control nations' wealth and armies.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. +infinity! According to some on DU, anyone who works and donates to a campaign

is some nefarious "lobbyist"!!! :crazy:

[Philosopher King]

9. As you may have noticed, there are several big law firms on that list in addition to those

those big educational and corporate institutions.

And your guess it right, the contributions were from PACs, which are formed by corporations and institutions to get around the limits on individual contributions. Nevertheless, the donations come from its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. And I'm sure you would not be surprised to discover that in many cases, donations are not made by the person whose name is on the money. Finally, all of the money on the previous list went to Obama--McCain got some too, but Obama received far more.

I do not agree with your assessment that it's always a good thing when they (one percenters) sue each other. Many lawsuits are indeed warranted; however, we squander many resources on illegitimate and unwarranted litigation. We would all be better off if we were adamant about our government and business officials adhering to strict ethical standards. We are far too easy on crimes involving political and corporate corruption. Jack Abramoff is back on the streets after serving a mere 3 1/2 years. His brand of corruption, which is practiced by many others, is destroying the foundation of our society. People convicted of bribing or taking bribes should receive a ten year minimum sentence and the second offense should be life without parole.

[quaker bill]

10. In some cases

you may be correct, it came from a PAC. In many cases it is not a PAC. If 200 individuals at the agency I work for donated the personal legal maximum ($2,300), the agency would appear on this list. In that I know what these folks earn this seems unlikely, but the point remains. Obama received far more of every sort of donation than McCain, picking one particular form of donation out as an implied criticism is a fairly weak argument, and is weakened further by the mixture of data. There is no "US Government" PAC.

We are a litigious society. I have been entrained by profession and subpoena into a number of frivolous lawsuits over the last 20 years.

I find it a problem that an individual who robs a convenience store for $50 is far more likely to spend a long prison sentence than an individual who steals by fraud the retirement savings of 10,000 people. This said, I am not at all taken with the notion of mandatory minimum sentences for bribery or anything else. We have far too many people in prison as it is.

[Earth_First]

8. Isn't this how it works though? Everyone is fucking everyone until the statue of limitations expire?

Then it's litigate, litigate, litigate against the very same parties; sorry about that, I'm sure you understand, see you at the next big scam?

[sarcasmo]

11. The norm has been a 10 percent fine, so they will only be fined a couple hundred million