Judge Katherin Forrest in her Manhattan court today ordered Tourre to pay $650,000 in civil fines and an additional $175,463 plus interest based on his personal gain at the heart of the transaction. Stating that “He has shown no remorse or contrition,” Judge Forrest also ordered that Goldman Sachs Group Inc (NYSE:GS) not be allowed to pay the $650,000 in civil fines but that Fabrice Tourre could seek reimbursement elsewhere. Her ruling was based on the months of “false emails and misleading marketing materials that were distributed to potential investors”.
The decision by US District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan came in one of the highest-profile cases brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in response to the events leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.
Fabrice Tourre barred from seeking reimbursement from Goldman
Judge Forrest also barred Fabrice Tourre from seeking to have Goldman Sachs Group Inc (NYSE:GS) cover his civil fines but said he could seek reimbursement from others, but to say that the book was thrown at Fabrice Tourre would risk overstatement. She denied the SEC’s request for an injunction barring the defendant from violating federal securities laws but said the regulatory agency could reapply if he re-enters the securities industry in the next three years.
The judgement follows a federal jury’s decision to find him libel on six charges that he lied, or at least mislead, investors in a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, or CDO, linked to mortgages called Abacus 2007-AC1. At the heart of the SEC’s claims against Fabrice Tourre was that he concealed from investors that Abacus was put together by Paulson & Co. though the hedge fund bet that the package would fail.
He was also accused of misleading ACA Capital Holdings, which chose a number of the packaged assets, under the belief that Paulson would be an equity investor in the CDO rather than a contrary investor.
“The fraud on ACA was critical to making the transaction work; without ACA as portfolio selection agent, Goldman would not have been able to convince others to invest in the equity of the transaction,” the judge wrote.