Search the Community

Fabrice was also mentioned in Greg's Why I Left Goldman Sachs A federal jury found former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. trader Fabrice Tourre liable for defrauding investors in a deal that imploded during the financial crisis, delivering a victory for a U.S. regulator out to prove its mettle inside the courtroom. The panel of nine jurors found Mr. Tourre liable on six of seven claims that he violated federal securities law by intentionally misleading investors. The jurors also determined he had aided and abetted an alleged fraud by Goldman. The unambiguous result surprised many lawyers who had watched the proceedings, expecting that the esoteric subject matter and more than two weeks of conflicting testimony would make a clear-cut victory unlikely. "They got a big win today," said David Marder, a securities litigator uninvolved in the case and a former assistant director of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Boston Regional office. After a string of high-profile defeats in other crisis-related civil cases, the SEC's reputation as a tough Wall Street watchdog was on the line in Mr. Tourre's trial, according to lawyers. Thursday marked the SEC's first victory in front of a jury for a financial-crisis case, five years after the meltdown. The verdict produced "happiness around the halls" of the SEC's D.C. headquarters, said one person close to the agency. Mr. Tourre's loss also delivered a bitter postscript to one of the darkest periods for Goldman. Facing a public backlash for its actions during the crisis, the firm agreed to pay a $550 million fine without admitting or denying wrongdoing back in 2010 when the SEC filed the charges against both Mr. Tourre and the bank. In his closing arguments, SEC lawyer Matthew Martens told jurors that "documents don't lie," alluding to emails and marketing materials that formed the core of the agency's case. After the verdict, juror Beth Glover, a 47-year-old Episcopal priest, said: "It was a long, slow process." Flanked by his lawyers, Mr. Tourre, 34 years old, sat back in his chair as the judge's deputy read aloud the decision. Co-counsel John "Sean" Coffey squeezed Mr. Tourre's shoulder. Mr. Tourre, who once went by the nickname "fabulous Fab," was expressionless as his lawyers led him out of the courtroom. "The case is still ongoing," a spokesman for Mr. Tourre said. His lawyers will meet with the SEC and Judge Katherine Forrest later this year to discuss Mr. Tourre's penalty. He may have to wait weeks to learn what it is. The SEC will ask the judge to impose sanctions, which could include financial penalties and a ban from the financial-services industry, an SEC spokesman said. Goldman said in a statement: "As a firm, we remain focused on being more transparent, more accountable, and more responsive to the needs of our clients." "We're obviously gratified with the jury's verdict and we appreciate their hard work," said Mr. Martens, the SEC lawyer. The verdict has important ramifications for the SEC and the firms it polices, legal experts said, adding weight to SEC Chairman Mary Jo White's pledge before she took office in April to be a "bold and unrelenting" Wall Street cop. It adds credibility to a new policy Ms. White announced in June of forcing companies and individuals to admit wrongdoing to settle certain cases or face being taken to trial, according to lawyers. Critics have faulted the agency for pursuing fairly junior employees, such as Mr. Tourre, one of many at Goldman who had a vice president title. After this verdict, critics are still likely to "question why the SEC never goes after the high-level employees and seems to focus on the lower-level actors," said Mr. Marder, the securities litigator. The civil trial, which began July 15, led jurors through a dense fog of industry jargon, to a time on Wall Street when one era was drawing to a close and the dark clouds of another loomed. The SEC's case centered on a complex mortgage-linked deal between sophisticated investors, and whether Mr. Tourre misled them on the role that New York hedge fund Paulson & Co. would play in that instrument. In April 2010, the SEC sued Mr. Tourre and Goldman for securities fraud, alleging they misled investors in an investment called Abacus 2007-AC1, known in Wall Street jargon as a synthetic collateralized debt obligation. The action stunned the industry, drew Goldman into a public spat and shattered the once-promising career of Mr. Tourre. The SEC offered Mr. Tourre a settlement, giving him a day to accept a fine and a lifetime securities-industry ban but with the right to reapply in two years, people familiar with the matter said. Unlike Goldman, he declined to settle. Abacus's origins traced to 2006, when Paulson & Co. went to Goldman with a trading idea to bet against subprime mortgages. Mr. Tourre suggested creating a deal that would allow investors to place opposing bets on a basket of mortgage bonds. Goldman set out to enlist a company to select those bonds, giving investors confidence that mortgages in the basket were neither too good nor too risky. By January, ACA Financial Guaranty Corp., a bond insurer that was one of Goldman's biggest CDO clients, appeared eager to take on the assignment, emails and court testimony showed. The SEC unearthed emails, phone calls and meetings it argued showed that Mr. Tourre led ACA executives to believe Paulson would be making a long investment in Abacus, betting on it to rise. The SEC said Abacus's misunderstanding about that was never corrected by anyone at Goldman. It also accused Mr. Tourre of hiding the hedge fund's role in helping select the mortgage bonds from investors that would eventually bet on the deal. Paulson wasn't accused of any wrongdoing. Several emails from Mr. Tourre to his girlfriend at the time, a Goldman saleswoman at the firm's London office, revealed that Mr. Tourre shared some pessimism about the market. At his trial, Mr. Tourre translated what he wrote, partly in French, to her: "The entire building is at risk of collapse at any moment. Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab (as Mitch would kindly call me, even though there is nothing fabulous about me

As above, nearly got into an accident today at orchard road.. from left 1st lane was bus lane i was at 2nd and this woman driver driving a golf was at 3rd lane.. then suddenly she swerve into my lane and nearly hit onto me.. till i siam to the left and horn then she move back to her lane.. Lucky there was no bus/car on the left.. just wondering if i do have evidence showing she was the 1 who cause me to swerve to the left and say i hit an vehicle, in this case who is liable? Assuming she run away or she stay..

I do not think the authorities will assist much in this sort of civil disputes or come out with such an insurance scheme. If pressed I guess they will say go for BMW to save ourselves these hassles... From ST Forum: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/...ory_782815.html Make Malaysian vehicles liable for accidents here Published on Mar 29, 2012 I WAS involved in an accident with a Malaysian vehicle on Jan 3. The Traffic Police have not charged either party. If the accident had involved two Singapore-registered vehicles, the apportioning of liability would have been 50:50. However, as this involved a Malaysian vehicle, I was advised by my insurer to make an own damage claim as it would be difficult to claim damages from the foreign vehicle or its insurer. This is grossly unfair. Singapore drivers pay road tax to drive on Singapore roads. We should be assured that in the event of an accident, our interests are protected. I have two suggestions:

M'sian insurers not liable A NEW High Court ruling here may create problems for car owners on both sides of the Causeway. The court has held that insurers of Malaysian- registered vehicles involved in accidents in Singapore cannot be forced to pay up. Currently, insurers settle claims based on the contracts signed with the vehicle owners. But this new ruling could bring such arrangements into review. Justice Kan Ting Chiu ruled in a judgment earlier this week that the relevant Singapore law for third-party risks and claims applies only to insurers of Singapore-registered vehicles for collisions on roads here. Similarly, a road accident victim who seeks damages in a Malaysian court for an accident caused by a Malaysian vehicle in Singapore will also not be able to sue the Malaysian insurer in a Malaysian court for the same reasons. This means that accident victims can pursue the claim against only the offending motorist, and not against the latter's insurer. But insurers and lawyers The Straits Times spoke to said that while the judge had made clear the position in law, in practice, insurers are still obliged to honour such claims based on the contracts signed with their clients. Senior lawyer Niru Pillai, who represents several insurers on both sides of the Causeway, said the contract signed between the insurer and the insured obliges the insurer to pay up, and it is sacrosanct. 'The judgment does not accord with the practical realities on the ground. The fact of the matter is, insurers do not walk away from their contractual liabilities.' In the case for which the judgment was delivered, Malaysian motorcyclist Lee Choon Keng, 30, had serious leg injuries after a collision with a Malaysian-registered motor trailer and a Singapore car. The accident occurred on Jan 13, 2006, along the Ayer Rajah Expressway. Mr Lee subsequently sued the drivers of both vehicles.

My friend's car SFSxxxx plate, obviously goning to be 3 years old, bought from a famous AD, found he still uses original tyres, looks tyre thread also amost wore off laio, I told him you should change your tyres 40k km or 2 years whichever come 1st, regardless the tyres were chipped or not, but he said he regularly service his car at this AD workshop, and the AD never advised him to change tyres, so just use loh

Was on the road early this morning and wondering about this: If a car breaks late for some reason, and the car behind also breaks late, thereby causing the third car to kiss the second car. Who is at fault? Is it the third car for not keeping a safe distance and speed? Hope I did not confuse anyone. :)