/9918578/Banner

/9918578/Banner_2

/9918578/Mid

section

articleId

product

orgType

parrefer

accountID

Consulting

Banking

Accounting

Fintech

Internships

Rankings

Internship Rankings

Intern Resource Center

Explore Internships

Vault Law Home

Practice Area Resource Centers

Regional Resource Centers

Summer Program Resource Center

Vault Law Culture & Inclusion Survey

Vault Law

Guides

Events

Financial Services

Technology

Grad School

Work Relationships

Productivity

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Social Impact

Remote Work

Negotiating

Changing Jobs

Workplace Issues

Blog

Resume Samples

Cover Letter Samples

Interview Tips & Questions

A Day in the Life

International

Career Readiness

Explore Professions

Research Industries

Search Companies

Career Advice

Employers

Schools

&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The Financial Times&lt;/i&gt; offers a version of what&amp;rsquo;s going on behind the scenes in SEC case against Goldman Sachs that contradicts somewhat the one depicted by John Carney on CNBC and discussed on this blog here. The&lt;i&gt; FT&lt;/i&gt; version is based, like Carney&amp;rsquo;s, on anonymous sources. The &lt;em&gt;FT&lt;/em&gt; version emphasizes the efforts Goldman is making to reach a settlement on a lesser charge&amp;ndash;omission of a material fact, rather than fraud. The prospect of a settlement being premised on Goldman neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing is treated neutrally as a plausible outcome. The piece cites Brad Hintz of Bernstein Research, who estimates that Goldman might pay a fine of $250 million and compensate investors by buying out their exposure to the notorious Abacus deal at a cost of $370 million.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;right&quot;&gt;-posted by brian&lt;/p&gt;

Vault Law Editors

Article

The Summer Experience at Weil’s Boston Office

The Summer Experience at Weil’s Miami Office

The Summer Experience at Weil’s New York Office

The Summer Experience at Weil’s Washington, D.C. Office

The Library