Quote from rufus_4000:
That is completely different, IPO underwriters have fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the information presented accurated to the public markets, the private equity firms does not have that responsibility.
While what you are saying is a true statement, it doesn't detract from my point, which is: it is very difficult to bring a negligence suit against an underwriter even in the worst of cases.
Here, it has been established that even a well regarded PE shop which is understood to conduct rigourous due dilligence on potential purchases failed to turn anything up. As such I'd imagine that the odds are good that the underwriter has a reasonable case to make that this fraud was above the level of dilligence expected of it. Since this case doesn't even come close to the most egregious catagory of IPO underwriter negligence I'd be surprised if GS takes a serious hit.
I guess you are making a statement about legal liability and I'm making a statement about the odds of that liability turning into a fine or settlement.
It is amazing for me that over span of 4-5 days, what began as a whisper of a mere "failed to disclose a related party transaction" to people on CNBC comparing Refco to Enron, and using words like "derivatives failure". I still maintain that the Refco is similiar to nature to what Sullivan did at MCI Worldcom (an entity still exists with huge assets), not the outright systematic fraud at Enron (an entity that has ceased to exist with absolutely no assets).
Well, while I agree that no one is booking fake revenues at Refco as with Enron, this 'parking' of a bad debt as a good receivable does have hallmarks of the off balance sheet vehicles favoured by ENE. A quibbling point to be sure, but both involved moving something to a not quite arms length entity to bamboozle the quarter end GAAP cops.