May 17, 2013 - The court ordered the authorization of the distribution of the net settlement fund.
November 8, 2012 - The court approved the settlement and entered the orders approving the plan of allocation, awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses, and dismissing the action with prejudice.

August 13, 2012 - The court preliminarily approved the settlement.

July 31, 2012 - Parties filed a stipulation of settlement.

January 12, 2011 - The court denied in part and granted in part defendants' motions to dismiss.

November 2, 2009 - Defendants filed motions to dismiss.

September 18, 2009 - The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

August 11, 2009 - More defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

August 10, 2009 - Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

June 22, 2009 - The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

May 6, 2009 - Lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.

April 7, 2009 - Lead plaintiff motion was filed.

February 6, 2009 - An investor in Goldman Sachs Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Goldman Sachs Mortgage Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed Certificates pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued during 2006 (collectively, the Offering Documents ).

The class includes purchasers of the following Certificates: GSAMP Trust 2006-S2, Series 2006-S2; GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-3, Series 2006-3; and GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-2, Series 2006-2.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2005, defendants caused a Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC in connection with and for the purpose of issuing billions of dollars of Goldman Sachs Mortgage Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed Certificates ( Certificates ). The Certificates were issued pursuant to the Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statement and were supported by pools of mortgage loans.

According to the complaint, the Offering Documents included false statements and/or omissions. The truth about the performance of the mortgage loans that secured the Certificates began to be revealed to the public, increasing the risk of the Certificates receiving less cash flow in the future and the likelihood that investors would not receive it on a timely basis. The credit rating agencies also began to put negative watch labels on the Certificates, ultimately downgrading many. As a result, so the lawsuit, the Certificates are no longer marketable at prices near the price paid for them, and the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be received than the Offering Documents represented.