FILE PHOTO: The sun rises behind the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S. November 4, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
Central to the dispute are the shareholders’ claims that when they bought Goldman shares they relied upon the bank’s statements about its ethical principles and internal controls against conflicts of interest, and its pledge that its “clients’ interests always come first.” Goldman has argued that these “aspirational” statements were too vague and general to have had any impact on the stock price.
“How are you defining generic or, stated otherwise, what kinds of statements are not generic?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked an attorney for Goldman. The case stemmed from Goldman’s sale of collateralized debt obligations including Abacus 2007 AC-1, which it assembled with help from hedge fund manager John Paulson.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.