英语家园

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问移动社区

搜索

高盛贝恩就“合谋案”支付巨额和解金

发布者: sunny214 | 发布时间: 2014-6-16 13:31| 查看数: 530| 评论数: 0|

Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital paid $121m to settle a lawsuit alleging they conspired with other private equity firms to fix the price of some of the biggest ever leveraged buyouts.
高盛(Goldman Sachs)和贝恩资本(Bain Capital)将共支付1.21亿美元,了结一项司法诉讼。诉讼指控它们与其他私人股本公司合谋操纵了一些大规模杠杆收购(leveraged buyouts)的价格。
Both Goldman and Bain said they came to the settlement, approved on Tuesday in the District Court of Massachusetts, to put an end to the protracted and costly litigation, which was brought in 2007 against 13 private equity firms of which five remain: Blackstone, Carlyle, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Silver Lake and TPG.
高盛和贝恩资本表示,它们周二与马萨诸塞州地区法院(District Court of Massachusetts)达成和解,就此结束了这起旷日持久且代价高昂的诉讼。这场诉讼始于2007年,针对13家私人股本机构。其中5家仍然是被告:黑石(Blackstone)、凯雷(Carlyle)、KKR(Kohlberg Kravis Roberts)、Silver Lake和德克萨斯太平洋集团(TPG)。
“We’re pleased to put this matter behind us,” said Goldman, which paid $67m. Bain paid $54m. Neither company admitted wrongdoing.
高盛表示:“我们很高兴这件事得到了解决。”高盛支付了6700万美元,贝恩资本支付了5400万美元。两家公司均否认自己有不当行为。
Shareholders in eight companies bought between 2003 and 2007 first brought the case, alleging they were denied a higher price for the buyout because private equity firms agreed not to compete against each other.
这场诉讼最初是由8家在2003年至2007年被收购的公司的股东首次提起的。他们指控称,之所以没有收到更高的收购价,是因为私人股本公司私下串通好了互不竞争。
The case challenges some accepted practices in “club” deals, where private equity firms collaborate rather than compete in acquisitions.
此案挑战了私募行业所谓“俱乐部交易”(club deal)的惯例:就是不同私人股本公司在并购时会合作而非竞争。
The lawsuit is partly built on emails between some of the best-known names in US finance, spanning Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman, and Henry Kravis, co-founder of KKR.
此案的证据部分来自美国金融界一些最知名大佬间的电邮,他们包括高盛首席执行官劳埃德•布兰克费恩(Lloyd Blankfein)和KKR联席创始人亨利•克拉维斯(Henry Kravis)。
A judge has ruled that some emails cited by the complainants do not constitute evidence of wrongdoing, dismissing the case against private equity firms including Thomas H Lee and Apollo Global Management.
一名法官裁定,原告引用的一些电邮并不构成不当行为的证据,因此驳回了针对Thomas H Lee和阿波罗全球管理公司(Apollo Global Management)等私人股本公司的诉讼。



最新评论

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表