I was going to try to summarize a Wall Street Journal article since I detest linking to subscriber-only pages regarding the SEC v. Goldman Sachs lawsuit. It's downright bizarre. But Neal Boortz did a nice job covering the nuts and bolts so I've posted that here. I'm not as quick to cry conspiracy as he is, but the factual bits he presents (most everything up until "So ...what's going on here?...") are spot on. Typically, if you follow business news at all, SEC lawsuits don't come out of the blue. The SEC is terrible at keeping secrets. When I first heard about the Goldman Sachs lawsuit, it was on the AM radio news announcements. So I looked it up, and was further confused on the reasoning for the lawsuit.
I'll let you read Boortz's summary but to give an analogy, Goldman Sachs hired a Paulson to breed them a racehorse. When they got the horse, they bet a lot on it and the Paulson turned around and bet against it. Paulson won big while Goldman Sachs lost big. Now I'm not the sharpest legal mind out there but it seems that if anything Goldman Sachs got just as screwed as anyone on this deal. I can't imagine them making it knowingly. And no, they didn't mention Paulson's involvement but ethereal predictions (which is all he had at the time regarding the real estate market) are no basis of determining disclosure. Is the SEC setting up a Philip-K-Dick-ian pre-crime unit I don't know about? If anything, shouldn't the SEC be going after Paulson and not Goldman Sachs?
It's just strange. I'm not pointing any fingers yet as my own precog abilities aren't up to par, but I do think there's more to this lawsuit than meets the eye.