Last Friday, Goldman Sachs issued a flat denial of a key piece of the SEC's lawsuit:
Goldman Sachs never represented to ACA that Paulson was going to be a long investor.
Today, one of the company's top officials framed the issue in a way that seemed squishier:
We simply do not believe that the evidence cited by the SEC demonstrates that ACA was misled into believing that Paulson was going to be buying an equity position.
(For an explanation of who all these people are, and what the case is about, see this post from Friday.)
The official who spoke today, Goldman's co-general counsel Greg Palm, said that Goldman "would never intentionally mislead anyone." But Goldman did introduce ACA to Paulson, he said.
So here's my question: If Goldman introduced ACA to Paulson — and Goldman did not tell ACA that Paulson was going to be a long investor — what did Goldman say to ACA about Paulson's interest in the matter? That wasn't clear from Palm's comments today, or from Goldman's statement on Friday.
By the way, Goldman said this morning that it made $3.5 billion in the first quarter of this year. That's much higher than the first quarter of '09, and a bit lower than the fourth quarter of '09. You can read more about the earnings in the WSJ and Bloomberg News.