In a striking series of developments late yesterday afternoon, the Senate passed the financial reform bill and the SEC announced its record-setting settlement of the enforcement action it filed against Goldman Sachs last April. The Goldman settlement drew extensive coverage in the mainstream media, primarily focused on the sheer size of the $550 million settlement and on Goldman’s concessions that, according to the SEC’s press release, "its marketing materials for the subprime product contained incomplete information."

 

Goldman Sachs’ July 15, 2010 statement about the settlement can be found here.

 

There are many other interesting details about the settlement, some of which have not received widespread attention in the media.

 

First, the settlement resolves only the charges against Goldman Sachs itself. According to the SEC’s July 15, 2010 press release, "the SEC’s litigation continues against Fabrice Tourre," who seems to have left to fend for himself. Things don’t appear quite so "fabulous" for Mr. Tourre just now.

 

Second, as reflected in Goldman’s July 14, 2010 "Consent" (a copy of which can be found here), the $550 million settlement amount consists of a disgorgement of $15 million and a civil penalty of $535 million.

 

Goldman acknowledged in the Consent that the settlement funds may be distributed under the Fair Funds provisions of Section 308 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act. In its press release, the SEC states that of the $550 million settlement, $250 million would be paid to "harmed investors" through a Fair Funds distribution and $300 million will be paid to the Treasury.

 

Third, the Consent also reflects the specifics of Goldman’s admissions regarding the Abacus transaction. In paragraph 3 of the Consent, Goldman "acknowledges" that the Abacus marketing materials "contained incomplete information" and that it was "a mistake" for the materials to state that the Abacus reference portfolio was selected by ACA Management without disclosing the role of Paulson & Co or that Paulson’s economic interests were adverse to those of the CDO investors. The consent states that Goldman "regrets" the omission of this information.

 

Fourth, Goldman agrees in the Consent that, other than with respect to the amount of the disgorgement, it will not argue that it is entitled to any offset or reduction of a compensatory damages award in any Related Investor Action by any amount of any part of the company’s payment of a civil penalty in the SEC enforcement action. If a court nevertheless grants an offset, the Goldman has to pay the amount of the offset either to the Treasure or the Fair Fund, within 30 days.

 

Fifth, Goldman agrees both that "it shall not seek or accept, directly or indirectly, reimbursement or indemnification form any source, including but not limited ot payment may to any insurance policy, with regard to any civil penalty" and also agrees that it "shall note claim, assert or apply for a tax deduction or tax credit with regard to any federal state or local tax for any penalty amounts."

 

Sixth, Goldman acknowledges in the Consent that the Commission has not made any promises or representations "with regard to any criminal liability that may have arisen or may arise from the facts underlying this action or immunity from any such criminal liability."

 

Finally, in the Consent, Goldman agrees that it will not make any public statements "denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis." However, this agreement does not affect Goldman’s "right to take legal or factual positions in litigation or other legal proceedings in which the Commission is not a party."

 

All told, the Consent is a really striking document that — together with the massive size of the settlement itself — bespeaks a compelling need on Goldman’s part to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

 

An interesting question is the effect that Goldman’s "acknowledgement" in the Consent will have on the various shareholder lawsuits that sprang up in the wake of the SEC enforcement action.

 

On the one hand, the omissions that Goldman acknowledged in the Consent were made in the marketing materials for the Abacus document, not in the public statements to Goldman’s shareholders.

 

On the other hand, Goldman’s acknowledgement that it made a "mistake" when it omitted information from the Abacus marketing materials clearly will be useful for the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the shareholder lawsuits. But, as Duke Law Professor James Cox commented on the WSJ.com Law Blog, even though Goldman admitted to a "mistake," it did not admit to fraud.

 

In any event, the plaintiffs’ lawyers can at least be reassured that Goldman cannot attempt to offset its liability in the shareholder lawsuits by the amount of its massive penalty in this settlement.

 

Andrew Longstreth’s July 15, 2010 Am Law Litigation Daily article with his thoughts about the effect of the Goldman SEC settlement on other litigation pending against Goldman can be found here.

 

Goldman’s undertaking that it would not seek reimbursement or insurance for the amounts of the penalty seems largely symbolic, since it is highly unlikely that any insurance policy would provide coverage for the disgorgement amounts and penalties that the company has agreed to pay. However, the significance of the undertaking may be what it portends for other settlements in other matters. This kind of requirement that enforcement action defendants will not seek indemnification or insurance for amounts paid in SEC enforcement action settlements represents a substantial (and chilling) threat to other persons the SEC may target.

 

The exclusion of Tourre from the settlement is interesting. It is possible that Mr. Tourre himself may have declined to participate, either because he believes he did nothing wrong or because he was unwilling to make the type of acknowledgment the SEC might require as a condition of settlement. It is also possible that the SEC expected Tourre to agree to some type of ban that would undermine his ability to continue to work as an investor banker in the United States. Whatever the reason, it does seem noteworthy that Tourre is not a part of this settlement.

 

Another question about the settlement relates to the proposed Fair Funds distribution. Why does the Treasury get $300 million but "harmed investors" only get $250 million? (I guess that is one way to reduce the deficit.)

 

The other question about the propose Fair Funds distribution is, who are the "harmed investors" who will get these funds? It seems that it would be the two investors in the Abacus transaction, IKB and ACA– except that ACA’s interests have been passed along to Royal Bank of Scotland, as a result of other transactions that ACA entered attendant to the Abacus deal.

 

I suppose the Fair Funds administrator will have to sort all of that out, but it does seem like SEC went to an awful lot of trouble for the benefit of non-U.S. institutional investors that have plenty of problems of their own – and that is setting aside the question whether the institutional investors who entered this transaction are either entirely blameless or merit this type active regulatory protection.

 

As Professor Cox commented (quite appropriately I might add) on the WSJ.com Law Blog, the investors "made out like bandits." (He added that the investors are "not necessarily saints here.") The Los Angeles Times takes a look here at where the settlement money is going and also summarizes the various sordid background details on the Abacus transaction investors.

 

It is interesting to reflect that, according to media reports, the SEC was divided 3-2 on whether to bring the Goldman Sachs enforcement action. The settlement seems to make the decision to bring the case look pretty good. But what is even more curious is that, at least according to yet other media reports, the SEC also split 3-2 on whether to settle with Goldman.

 

I can understand the split vote on whether to bring the action, because the SEC did not, shall we say, have the strongest case in the world against Goldman. But once you have a chance to snag a half a billion dollars, don’t you declare victory and go home for a nice dinner and a glass of wine with your spouse? Geez, seems like a good day’s work to me.

 

Finally, can I just say that while the SEC has touted this settlement as some kind of record, the fact is that there have been larger SEC enforcement action settlements. As reflected in data from NERA Economic Consulting (here), there have been at least two larger SEC enforcement action settlements, including AIG’s February 2006 $800 million settlement and WorldCom’s July 2003 $750 million settlement. The Goldman Sachs settlement is, as the SEC pointed out, the largest settlement against a Wall Street firm. I guess we can all agree that more than half a billion dollars is a lot of money, even for Goldman Sachs.

 

UPDATE: The morning press coverage provided some added perspective on some of the points raised above. First, with respect to the size of the settlement, the Wall Street Journal notes that the $550 million settlement "is equivalent to just 14 days of profits at Goldman in the first quarter."  (Maybe half a billion isn’t a lot of money for Goldman Sachs.) As for whether the amount represents some kind of record, the Journal notes that in 1988 Drexel Burnham Lambert agreed to pay $650 million in fines and restitution. The Drexel settlement included amounts paid to satisfy investors’ civil claims. in 2003, ten Wall Street firms collectively paid $1.4 billion to settle analyst conflict cases. Finally, as for Mr. Tourre, the Journal reports the he plans to "continue trying to clear his name accoding to a person familiar with the matter."

 

Let the Games Begin: The Senate may now have approved the financial reform bill and all 2,319 pages of the bill will now be headed to the White House for President Obama’s signature. But this is not the end, it is the beginning.

 

As Broc Romanek points out on the CorporateCounsel.net blog (here), under the Dodd-Frank Act, "a total of 11 regulators are committed to make 243 rulemakings, 67 studies and 22 new periodic reports under the Act. The SEC itself will be required to conduct 95 of those rulemakings, 17 studies and 5 new periodic reports."

 

Over at the SEC Actions blog, Tom Gorman has a detailed list, here, of several categories of the more significant rule making processes that lie ahead.

 

To those who want to know the meaning and significance of the financial reform bill’s passage, the only honest answer is – stay tuned.

 

As The Joker Said, "Why So Serious?": All of this seems way too serious to me, so it is about time to roll out The Egg Trick. If you have never seen this footage of Dom DeLuise’s unforgettable turn on the Johnny Carson Show, drop everything and watch this right now. With all of this other stressful stuff going on, you need a "break." Enjoy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/v/gRduPZvIm08&hl=en_US&fs=1