[lbo-talk] Seven Questions for the SEC regarding Goldman

michael perelman michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Sat Jul 17 11:07:39 PDT 2010


Today the Wall Street Journal has a very good article analyzing the Goldman victory over the SEC. The article is not yet gated, so I put the reference first.

Scannell, Kara and Susanne Craig. 2010. "SEC Split Over Goldman Deal." Wall Street Journal (17 July): p. A 1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704229004575371601322076426.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories&mg=com-wsj

Question 1: Is Ms. Casey really asking if the agency caved? Probably not, but if so, that is interesting.

"Republican Commissioner Kathleen Casey questioned the SEC staff Thursday on their decision to abandon the strongest fraud charge and strike a settlement involving a lesser allegation, and given that, how the SEC could justify such a large penalty on a lesser charge."

Question 2: Is Russell Ryan saying that the SEC did not have enough proof to charge Goldman with intentional fraud rather than giving incomplete information? After all, the fraud has been public knowledge for some time. Why did the SEC cave?

"Russell Ryan, a former SEC enforcement lawyer, said the negotiation to drop the strongest fraud charge is "usually a strong indication the SEC had some doubt whether it could prove intentional fraud. Mr. Ryan, now a defense lawyer at King & Spalding, said the SEC typically insists a defendant settle on the strongest allegation made in its complaints. Watering down the toughest charge, as in this case, is unusual."

more at:

http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/seven-questions-for-the-sec-regarding-goldman/

-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929

530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list