Goldman Sachs Files Lawsuit: By suing in a UK court, Goldman Sachs Group (GS.N) has put Malaysia in a legal fight and made things more difficult with the settlement deal that deals with the bank’s role in the huge 1MDB corruption scandal.
Today, arbitration proceedings against the Malaysian government began, claiming breach of contract for not properly accrediting assets against the guarantee given by Goldman Sachs under the settlement agreement. The arbitration is also looking for other assets that have yet to be recovered. A person close to the case said that this risky legal move is taking place at the London Court of International Arbitration. This information was first seen on Bloomberg News.
The offices of Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and the Attorney General’s Chambers have been quiet about this judicial attack so far, refusing to say anything.
Anwar gave Goldman Sachs a vague warning less than sixty days ago, saying he would sue them and make the real hatred between the two companies public. This new legal step is being taken in light of that threat. Goldman Sachs agreed to pay a huge $3.9 billion to stop Malaysia from investigating its role in the 1MDB scandal as part of the 2020 settlement deal that was at the heart of their fight.
Goldman Sachs has to make a one-time payment of $250 million under a complicated clause in this deal if the Malaysian government does not take control of at least $500 million in assets and proceeds by August 2022. In regulatory papers earlier this year, the bank explained how complicated this clause is.
Also Read: Lloyd Blankfein Sets the Record: No Plans to Return to Goldman Sachs
Goldman says different interpretations make the gap bigger. They say there is disagreement about whether Malaysia recovered the $500 million before the August 2022 date and whether the bank needs to make an interim payment.
At the heart of this legal chaos is the complicated 1MDB case. It was a disaster for the economy, and it is thought that $4.5 billion was stolen from the sovereign wealth fund. Employees of Goldman Sachs, Malaysia’s former prime minister Najib Razak, high-level employees of the 1MDB fund, and others were all caught up in the scam, which was a complex international plot.
The prosecution says Goldman was very important in helping 1MDB raise $6.5 billion through bond sales while taking home an amazing $600 million in fees.
As the legal battle goes on, the US works hard to return money taken from assets reportedly bought with illegal 1MDB funds. This shows how this high-stakes financial scandal affects people all over the world.
Our Reader’s Queries
How much is the Goldman Sachs settlement?
Goldman Sachs has been ordered to pay $215 million in a sex bias/gender discrimination case dating back to 2010. The settlement was granted final approval by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres on Tuesday, November 7, 2023. This decision was reported by Law360 (subscription) and other media outlets.
Did Goldman Sachs pay $215 million to settle gender bias suit?
Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $215 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the bank of discriminating against women in terms of pay, performance evaluations, and promotions. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2010, was scheduled to go to trial next month. This settlement marks a significant step towards addressing gender discrimination in the workplace.
What are the allegations against Goldman Sachs?
Goldman Sachs faced a lawsuit in 2010 from two former female employees, Cristina Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich. The lawsuit alleged gender discrimination, stating that the company allowed a culture of sexual harassment and assault to thrive, resulting in women being either objectified or disregarded.
What company is sued for gender discrimination?
In July 2021, Activision Blizzard, a Santa Monica-based company, was sued by California’s civil rights agency. The lawsuit claimed that female employees were subjected to continuous sexual harassment, and that women were underrepresented in leadership positions. Additionally, when women did hold leadership roles, they were paid less than their male counterparts in terms of salary, incentive pay, and overall compensation.