The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has not been linked to any key people yet.

Top Cases

Sort: Most Popular  ·  Most Recent

1. Pending (On Appeal)In Re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation
   Court of Chancery of Delaware  Case No. 12711-VCS

   Breach of Fiduciary DutyConflicted TransactionCorporate GovernanceELON MUSKEntire FairnessFraudMergers and AcquisitionsShareholder Derivative SuitSolarCityTeslaTesla Securities ActionsTesla Solar

   AIThis consolidated stockholder derivative action, filed in September 2016 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, challenged Tesla Motors' $2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity Corporation as a conflicted transaction that amounted to a bailout of a struggling company at Tesla shareholders' expense. The central allegation was that Elon Musk, who held a significant stake in both Tesla and SolarCity and whose cousins Lyndon and Peter Rive ran SolarCity, orchestrated the merger to rescue SolarCity from financial distress while using Tesla as the vehicle to do so. Plaintiffs alleged that Musk and the Tesla board members who approved the deal breached their fiduciary duties to Tesla shareholders. The litigation proceeded through years of discovery and motion practice before proceeding to a ten-day trial before Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III in July 2021. The trial featured extensive testimony and expert analysis on whether SolarCity was financially distressed at the time of the acquisition, whether the deal price was fair, and whether Tesla's board acted independently given Musk's influence over it. Key witnesses included financial experts debating the valuation of SolarCity and the terms of the transaction. Vice Chancellor Slights issued his post-trial decision in April 2022, ruling that while Musk was a conflicted controlling stockholder, the acquisition was entirely fair to Tesla shareholders and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court in May 2022.

2. In Re: Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation
   New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:11-md-02296-DLC

3. Marc S. Kirschner, as Litigation Trustee for the Tribune Litigation Trust v. Dennis J FitzSimons, et al
   New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:12-cv-02652

4. Administrative Case Re: 08-01789 (Securities Invest- Adversary Proceeding
   New York Southern Bankruptcy Court  Case No. 09-01239

   BankruptcyFeeder FundFraudulent TransferInvestment FraudMadoffPonzi SchemeSIPA Liquidation

   AIIrving H. Picard, the trustee for the SIPA liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, filed this sprawling adversary proceeding in May 2009 in the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court before Judge Burton Lifland, seeking to recover billions of dollars in fraudulent transfers made to Fairfield Greenwich Limited and its affiliated entities including Fairfield Sentry, Greenwich Sentry, and Fairfield Sigma. Fairfield Greenwich had been the largest feeder fund into the Madoff Ponzi scheme, investing approximately $7 billion with Madoff on behalf of its clients. The proceeding consolidated claims against hundreds of subsequent transferees from Fairfield Greenwich, including major international banks and financial institutions such as UBS, HSBC, ABN AMRO, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Merrill Lynch, and scores of Swiss, Austrian, and Cayman Island funds and feeder vehicles. The trustee also asserted claims against Fairfield Greenwich principals Walter Noel, Jeffrey Tucker, and Andres Piedrahita, alleging they knew or should have known of the fraud. The proceeding encompasses what is likely the largest fraudulent transfer litigation in U.S. history.

5. Dismissed (Settled)In re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation
   New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:13-md-02476

   AntitrustClass ActionCredit Default SwapsFinancial IndustryInvestment BanksPrice FixingSherman Act

   AIThis antitrust class action, consolidated in the Southern District of New York in April 2013, alleged that a group of major investment banks including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and others conspired to restrain competition in the market for credit default swaps (CDS) by blocking efforts to create exchanges and central clearing facilities that would have allowed institutional investors to trade CDS more efficiently and at lower cost. The defendants were alleged to have used their control over ISDA, the industry standard-setting body, to stifle competing platforms such as Citadel's competing exchange initiative. The case involved complex antitrust analysis of the CDS market structure. The litigation was resolved through settlements totaling approximately $1.87 billion.

6. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
   New York Southern Bankruptcy Court  Case No. 08-13555

7. The Bankruptcy Link- Adversary Proceeding
   New York Southern Bankruptcy Court  Case No. 08-01789

8. DecidedThe Bankruptcy Link- Adversary Proceeding
   New York Southern Bankruptcy Court  Case No. 11-13702

   BankruptcyFraudulent TransferMadoffPonzi SchemeSIPA Liquidation

   AIThis adversary proceeding docketed in August 2011 in the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court before Judge Stuart Bernstein is an administrative linking docket for the Bernard L. Madoff SIPA liquidation, connecting the main case (08-01789) with multiple related adversary proceedings. The parties listed include the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, Shana D. Madoff, trustee Irving H. Picard, Ronald M. Gross, and various Fairfield Greenwich entities. All entries are undated, consistent with an administrative cross-reference docket. The termination date of June 29, 2011 — which precedes the filing date of August 3, 2011 — reflects the administrative nature of this linking docket within the broader Madoff bankruptcy estate proceedings.

9. Levy v. Gutierrez et al
   New Hampshire District Court  Case No. 1:14-cv-00443

10. Tribune Company- Adversary Proceeding
    Delaware Bankruptcy Court  Case No. 10-53963

11. Chen-Oster et al v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. et al
    New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:10-cv-06950-AT-JCF

    Class ActionEmploymentGender DiscriminationGoldman SachsPay EquityTitle VIIWall Street

    AIH. Christina Chen-Oster, Lisa Parisi, Shanna Orlich, Allison Gamba, and Mary De Luis filed this gender discrimination class action in September 2010 in the Southern District of New York before Judge Analisa Torres against Goldman Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The plaintiffs, all current or former Goldman Sachs employees, alleged that Goldman systematically paid women less than men, denied them promotions, and maintained a discriminatory culture that disadvantaged female employees in violation of Title VII. The case involved years of contentious class certification litigation. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of thousands of current and former female Goldman Sachs employees. The case remained active into the 2020s as one of the highest-profile gender discrimination class actions against a major financial institution.

12. IPO Securities Lit., et al v. , et al
    New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:21-mc-00092

13. In re: Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation
    New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:13-md-02481

    Aluminum

14. Deangelis v. Corzine et al
    New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:11-cv-07866

15. W.R. Grace & Co., et al.
    Delaware Bankruptcy Court  Case No. 01-01139

16. In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation
    New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:13-cv-07789

17. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank Of America Corporation
    New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:14-cv-07126

18. Dreier LLP
    New York Southern Bankruptcy Court  Case No. 1:10-ap-4598

19. City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc. et al
    New York Southern District Court  Case No. 1:14-cv-02811

20. Washington Mutual, Inc.
    Delaware Bankruptcy Court  Case No. 08-12229

Filings Over Time

Related Issues

	0	Banking executives have not been prosecuted for the 2008 financial crisis Anonymous, February 2, 2012 at 2:40 AM EST
		I have to obey the law every day. Bank CEOs, on the other hand--they're worth enough that they're above the law.