Connect with us

US

Supreme Court Looks for Narrow Path in Investors’ Suit Against Goldman Sachs

Published

on

[ad_1]

A divided three-judge panel of the court of appeals said its ruling relied on a presumption created by a 1988 Supreme Court decision, Basic v. Levinson, which said investors claiming they were defrauded by false statements in securities filings need not show they had relied on the statements. Instead, it said, they could rely on a presumption that all important publicly available information about a company is reflected in its stock price.

The theory allowed investors to skip a step required in ordinary fraud suits: direct proof that they relied on the contested statement. It also allowed investors to avoid a requirement for class actions: proof that their claims had enough in common to allow them to band together.

Sopan Joshi, a lawyer for the federal government, said it was possible that generic statements could be quite meaningful in the case argued Monday, an argument that had been repeated in briefs filed by the pension funds and their supporters.

“Goldman Sachs was dealing with a lot of financial instruments in which conflicts were extremely important, both to the company” and to the “reputational advantage that it enjoyed over its competitors and peers, and the industry more generally,” he said. “In this case, even highly generic statements about conflicts did, in fact, have a price impact.”

Mr. Joshi, who did not argue in support of either side, added that the government took no position on whether that analysis was correct, and he urged the justices to instruct the appeals court to address it.

Though all three lawyers agreed that courts may consider whether generic statements affected stock prices, they differed on what should happen in the case, Goldman Sachs Group v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, No. 20-222.

Mr. Shanmugam, Goldman’s lawyer, said the court should reverse the appeals court’s ruling certifying the class; Mr. Goldstein, the lawyer for the pension funds, said the justices should affirm the ruling; and Mr. Joshi, the government lawyer, said the court should vacate the appeals court’s decision and instruct it to reconsider the case.

[ad_2]

Source link

Continue Reading

US

Suspect arrested in fatal Brooklyn stabbing

Published

on

By

[ad_1]

Police have apprehended a suspect in the fatal December stabbing of a Brooklyn man, cops said on Saturday.

The suspect, John Headley, 32, also of Brooklyn, was taken into custody Friday and charged with murder and weapons possession for the Dec. 12 knifing of Ken Baird, 37, police said.

Baird was stabbed multiple times in the chest following a dispute on Crown Street near Utica Avenue in Crown Heights at about 6:40 p.m., police said.

EMS transported Baird to King County Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, cops said.

Source link

[ad_2]

Source link

Continue Reading

US

Man dies after jumping from Staten Island Ferry

Published

on

By

[ad_1]

A 53-year-old man died Saturday after jumping from the Staten Island Ferry into the chilly waters of New York Harbor, police said.

NYPD Harbor launch officers pulled the man out of the water after responding to reports of a jumper near the Whitehall Ferry Terminal in Manhattan at around 2 p.m.

“He jumped off the ferry as it pulled away from the dock,” an NYPD spokesman told The Post. He jumped off the Ferryboat Andrew J. Barberi, police said.

The unidentified victim was removed to Pier 11 and transported to New York-Presbyterian Hospital, where he was pronounced dead shortly after 3:10 p.m.

A newsstand worker said there were “about 50 or so emergency people” at Pier 11 following a valiant effort — which included CPR — to save the man’s life.

Ferry1

An NYPD spokesman says the 53-year-old man “jumped off the ferry as it pulled away from the dock.”

Michael Dalton

Ferry3

The 53-year-old man was transported to New York-Presbyterian Hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Michael Dalton

Up Next

Vitali Kravtsov officially made his NHL debut Saturday night in…

Source link

[ad_2]

Source link

Continue Reading

US

Kemp Lashes M.L.B. as Republicans Defend Georgia’s Voting Law

Published

on

By

[ad_1]

Mr. Kemp, who is gearing up to run for re-election in 2022, has striven to re-enter the good graces of Republican voters after becoming a central political target of former President Donald J. Trump because of his refusal to help Mr. Trump overturn the state’s election results last year. A former secretary of state of Georgia who has his own record of decisions that made voting harder for the state’s residents, he is again a key G.O.P. voice leading the charge on the issue.

On Saturday, he repeatedly tried to paint the league’s decision as driven by Stacey Abrams, the voting rights advocate and former Democratic candidate for governor in Georgia who is seen as likely to challenge Mr. Kemp again next year.

Ms. Abrams, one of the most prominent critics of Georgia’s voting law, has pushed back on calls for sports leagues and corporations to boycott the state. She said on Friday that she was “disappointed” baseball officials had pulled the All-Star Game but that she was “proud of their stance on voting rights.”

In defending the law in Georgia, Mr. Kemp singled out two Democratically controlled states, New York and Delaware, and compared their voting regulations with the new law in Georgia. Those states do not offer as many options for early voting as Georgia does, but they have also not passed new laws instituting restrictions on voting.

“In New York, they have 10 days of early voting,” Mr. Kemp said (New York actually has nine). “In Georgia, we have a minimum of 17, with two additional Sundays that are optional in our state. In New York, you have to have an excuse to vote absentee. In Georgia, you can vote absentee for any reason.”

[ad_2]

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending