Cases

355 B.R. 438 (2006) In re: GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES, INC., et al., Debtors. Richard Haskell, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 00-02692 PJW, Adversary No. 04-53376(PJW). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. December 13, 2006. *439 *440

367 B.R. 516 (2007) In re GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES, INC., et al., Debtors. Richard Haskell, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 00-02692 (PJW). Adversary No. 04-53375 (PJW). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. May 4, 2007. *517 Teresa K.D. Currier, Peter J. Duhig, Buchan

324 B.R. 510 (2005) In the Matter of GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES, INC., Debtors. Richard Haskell, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.; Mellon Bank, N.A.; Highland Capital Management, L.P.; George V. Hager, Defendants. No. 00-2691, No. 00-2842. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. May 3, 2005.

22-484 Ark. Tchr. Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2022 (Argued: September 21, 2022 | Decided: August 10, 2023) Docket No. 22-484 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WEST VIRGINIA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT BOARD, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Dragon Systems, Inc. (“Dragon”), a leading voice recognition software company in the late 1990s, needed infusions of capital to continue operations and so sought an acquisition partner. It hired an investment banker, Goldman Sachs (“Goldman”), to assist it. Dragon was acquired in June 2000 by Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. But Lernout & Hauspie

18-3667 Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________ August Term 2018 (Argued: June 26, 2019 | Decided: April 7, 2020) Docket No. 18-3667 ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WEST VIRGINIA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT BOARD, PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS PE

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SARIS, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On June 7, 2000, Dragon Systems, Inc. (“Dragon”), a company that revolutionized *301speech recognition technology, merged into Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. (“L & H”). Within months, the public disclosure of a fraud at L & H rendered its sto

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge: Plaintiffs in this class action allege that Goldman Sachs & Co. (“Goldman”), Lloyd C. Blankfein, David A. Viniar, and Gary D. Cohn (the “Individual Defendants,” and collectively with Goldman, the “Defendants”) violated § 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Count One); and § 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Count

Wesley, Circuit Judge: Investors in a securities fraud class action traditionally have a problem proving that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over ... questions affecting only individual members” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The presumption established in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 108 S.Ct. 978, 9

OPINION SIDNEY H. STEIN, District Judge. In this slip-and-fall action, plaintiff Joseph Dwyer asserts claims pursuant to New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) as well as common-law negligence claims, which arise out of injuries he suffered while working on a construction project. Defendants Goldman Sachs Headquarters LLC and Structure Tone, Inc.— the owner of the building where plaintiffs

DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge. Court-appointed lead plaintiff Dodona I, LLC (“Dodona”) brought this action on behalf of a putative class of investors in certain securities offerings led by-defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS & Co”), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman”), and former Goldman employees Peter L. Ostrem (“Ostrem”) and Derryl K. Herrick (“Herrick”) (collect

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff Jeffrey W. Bader appeals from the denial of his motion to enjoin defendants from issuing defendant Goldman Sachs’s 2008 annual proxy statement because of the method used to value compensatory stock options. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. We review a district court’s denial of a

*1044OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that Court and the certified question answered in the negative. Plaintiff ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. commenced this act

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff Jeffrey W. Bader appeals from the denial of his motion to enjoin defendants from issuing defendant Goldman Sachs’s 2008 annual proxy statement because of the method used to value compensatory stock options. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. We review a district court’s denial of a

DECISION AND ORDER VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge. Plaintiff Dodona I, LLC (“Dodona”) brings this suit on behalf of a putative class of investors in two securities offerings led by defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS & Co”), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman”), Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Ltd. (“Hudson 1 Ltd.”), Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Corp. (“Hu

MEMORANDUM OPINION JORDAN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from an adversary proceeding before the Bankruptcy Court. The Complaint, filed by 275 former debenture holders1 of Genesis Health Ventures (“Genesis”), alleges that Genesis and co-defendants Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“Goldman”), Mellon Bank, N.A. (“Mellon”), Highland Capit

(2007) The 60223 TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. and Matthew Janiga, Defendants. No. 03 Civ. 3548(TPG). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 4, 2007. OPINION THOMAS P. GRIESA, District Judge. This action is brought by purchasers of the common stock o

387 F.Supp.2d 314 (2005) Rodney WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY, et al. Defendants. No. 1:00-CV-6889 GBD FM. United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 26, 2005. *315 *316 *317 Desiree S. Hamilton, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.

OPINION & ORDER HAROLD BAER, JR., District Judge: Plaintiff Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (“Plaintiff’ or “MissPERS”) moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) to (1) certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired publicly offered certificates of GSAMP Trust 2006-S2 (the “Offering”) and who were damaged thereby (the “Class”); and (2) appoint Plainti

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judge: Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 impose essentially strict liability for material misstatements contained in registered securities offerings. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, l(a)(2), o. This appeal requires us to consider a plaintiffs standing to assert claims on behalf of purchasers of securities issued u