Here's a point I haven't seen made elsewhere: Sixth -- how will Goldman defend themselves? The standard defense when two parties to securities litigation are "

Here's a point I haven't seen made elsewhere: Sixth -- how will Goldman defend themselves? The standard defense when two parties to securities litigation are "sophisticated investors" is to argue the parties were essentially big boys and knew the risks. That defense isn't possible in this case, largely because of the statute employed. This case comes down to whether or not Goldman lied -- period. Either they did or didn't misrepresent facts. The financial standing of the purchaser of the security is irrelevant. Goldman's only defense is to somehow demonstrate they did not lie about the transaction. Given the complaint filed, I don't see how that argument is possible. Since the "big boys" argument has been frequently cited -- it's basically the "caveat emptor" defense running through most threads about the case including this one -- it's worth noting that if this guy is right, it's irrelevant.