Analyzing The Film "inside Job" From A Legal Perspective Movie Review Examples

A 2010 documentary film Inside Job is directed by Charles H. Ferguson and discusses upon the 2008 financial crisis. The film is divided into 5 parts, which explain what led to the financial crisis in the United States. Inside Job was well received by the film critics, and it won the 2010 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.
The film features numerous examples of potentially illegal practices including different actions, affirmative statements, omissions and schemes. My attention was mostly paid to the Goldman Sachs case of 2007-2008 concerning the short-selling of the subprime mortgage-backed securities the company was itself betting against.
In the court, it was found out that Goldman Sachs saw that their securities were defaulting, but they didn’t warn the investors to stay away from those products. Instead, they began to develop a short position allowing them to gain a profit of the collapse of the mortgage market. Goldman Sachs sold RMBS and CDO securities to their own clients, but they didn’t notify them of the fact, that they had a multi-billion dollar short against that same product. Among the sold CDOs, were Hudson 1, Anderson, Timberwolf, and Abacus 2007-AC1. In the movie, it is referred namely to Timberwolf and the e-mail, where one of the participants of the sales team of Goldman Sachs writes that the Timberwolf deal is unworthy. In the Timberwolf CDO, Goldman Sachs sold the securities above book value to their clients. After the sale, it dropped the price, which made the clients sustain losses. The Timberwolf security lost 80% of its value during 5 months. Today, it is worthless.
Analyzing such practice from a legal perspective, my opinion is that the victims, that is to say the clients, can prevail against the perpetrators, that is to say Goldman Sachs, for example, on a fraud claim in a court of law only in one case – if the lawyers of the victims can prove the combination collusion (between the representative of one side in a deal with the other side, that is to say between Goldman Sachs and Timberwolf). The lawyers of the victims would be obliged to show proof that Timberwolf ask Goldman Sachs to devaluate the securities. The analysts can neither be blamed because they only give their opinions on the situation. Otherwise, there is nothing against the law in this case: Goldman Sachs has a duty to serve their clients by showing prices on the transactions that the clients ask to show prices for. But they don’t necessarily have a duty to act in the best interests of their clients. In the context of the market making, there is no conflict in selling something to somebody, and then betting against that same security, and not disclosing that to the person you are selling it.
In the Timberwolf case, there is no law which can accuse Goldman Sachs of the fraud claim. To my mind, all the business of buying and selling securities is built on the system of risks. There can be no guarantees for the client, and everyone looks for his own profit: the company selling the securities, the brokers and the clients buying these securities.
So I think that in general, if taking into account that it is almost impossible to take such business shark as Goldman Sachs red-handed, would not be likely to win in a court of law. The director of Inside Job brings it forth.