Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that just because Goldman Sachs claimed integrity, honesty and concern for client interests was no reason that the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System should have believed it.
Goldman Sachs argued before that Court that their claims of integrity were “aspirational” and should not have been used to base investment decisions by the Arkansas Retired Teachers Association.
It was a mission statement and the Court ruled those are basically bullshit.
Frankly, I’ve always thought that. Now, I guess it’s official.
The justices on Monday set aside a federal appeals court ruling that had let the suit go forward as a class action, saying it wasn’t clear the lower court adequately considered Goldman’s contention that its disputed statements were too generic to support the suit. The high court sent the case back to the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit the issue.
Goldman Sachs investors, led by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, say they were deceived by Goldman Sachs’s repeated public assurances that it was being vigilant about avoiding conflicts of interests. The shareholders say those assurances proved false when the Securities and Exchange Commission sued the company in April 2010 over a portfolio known as Abacus.
Arkansas retired teachers said 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 argued that the statements were aspirational and not meant to be taken seriously when applied to actual business practices.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the Courts judgement supporting Goldman Sachs.
6 thoughts on “Supreme court rules that Arkansas teachers pension were suckers to trust Goldman Sachs.”
Holy Crap Freddie, a security salesperson told an “untruth”, say it ain’t so!!!
The union is as they say on the street a “sophisticated investor”. That is they have the wherewithal and expertise to know wtf they are doing, in fact the odds are they paid for the advice to invest and knew the risks of doing so.
The advisors should be taken to task, as should the investment committee.
If this was a higher risk investment, then “oh well”, that’s life.
I actually agree in general. You make some factual errors. For example, the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System in not the union.
Equal Protection Under The Law*
But it does make me wonder if we have now totally dispensed with the concepts of false advertizing … fraud … and so on? And so much like the Giuliani Defense, “Only an idiot would believe what I said”.
The Supreme Court is filled with supreme courtiers who are there to assure that the USA has the best government money can buy.
SCOTUS supports religious rights as it decides in favor of Mammon.
Many Americans laugh at the little people who pay year after year into those quaint old pension funds. Let the buyer beware, you fools. Do you really expect the rule of law to be applied to you, the little?
Haven’t you noticed that our money, both coins and paper, state, “In God We Trust”? Yes, his name is Mammon and his symbol is the Bull on Wall Street – the one that all the tourists line up to have their photos taken with.
Sometimes gigantic monied powers are forced to pay penalties for their fraud and theft. Goldman Sachs has had to pay thousands of dollars for the billions they stole. To little people, thousands of dollars are lots of money.
“Goldman argued that the statements were aspirational and not meant to be taken seriously when applied to actual business practices.” And this argument won the case presented in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
SCOTUS has sunk to a new level.
(Yes, I’m dripping with sarcasm and anger as people treat pension theft/fraud as just another day in America.)
The case was sent back to the federal appeals court. The liberal justices concurred in the opinion. So it’s a bit too early to vent against the Court or the author of the opinion. Assuming the next round of court decisions tags Goldman for some vig, the tirades will prove unwarranted. Even if Goldman avoids liability altogether, the taxpayers will have more to complain about than the active or retired employees. It’s interesting to speculate whether Goldman will try to settle … I suspect they have the Huevón as well as the resources to stare down the plaintiffs’ lawyers while those lawyers are probably happily charging large fees to the pension funds. Meanwhile, who’s looking at the pension trustees who are the fiduciaries who hatched this egg? No doubt they have “governmental immunity” from personal responsibility of any kind. So … charge the taxpayers and blame it on SCOTUS. Great solution.