Goldman Reports Receipt Of Another SEC Wells Notice On February 24
Looks like the SEC is not done with Goldman Sachs, already the subject of the largest civil fine levied by the SEC on a Wall Street firm, aside for that whole Robosettlement farce of course - which still is not available to the general public, and is back for more wristslaps. Per Reuters: "The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notified Goldman Sachs Group Inc that it may file a civil case against the bank related to a $1.3 billion offering of subprime mortgage securities, Goldman said in a regulatory filing on Tuesday. Goldman received the "Wells notice" on Feb. 24 related to the bond deal, which was underwritten by Goldman in 2006, according to the 10-K filing. A Wells notice indicates that SEC staff plans to recommend that the Commission take legal action, and gives a recipient a chance to mount a defense. The bank said it will be making a submission to SEC staff "and intends to engage in a dialogue" with them to address their concerns." Our only question is how will Goldman pin this one entirely on Fabrice Tourre who may or may not be still in the employ of the 200 West headquartered firm.
On February 24, 2012, the firm received a “Wells” notice from the staff of the SEC with respect to the disclosures contained in the offering documents used in connection with a late 2006 offering of approximately $1.3 billion of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities underwritten by GS&Co. The firm will be making a submission to, and intends to engage in a dialogue with, the SEC staff seeking to address their concerns.
The firm expects to be the subject of additional putative shareholder derivative actions, purported class actions, rescission and “put back” claims and other litigation, additional investor and shareholder demands, and additional regulatory and other investigations and actions with respect to mortgage-related offerings, loan sales, CDOs, and servicing and foreclosure activities. See Note 18 for further information regarding mortgage-related contingencies.
Cue Carl Levin and more accusations of shitty deals and what not. Yet for all the bank scapegoating, when will one politician - just one - take the witness stand next to Blankfein or Viniar? Or were they all perfectly ignorant of what they were enabling and legislating?