Law-related stories are proliferating over at our big sibling site, DealBreaker. Here are three from yesterday afternoon alone:

1. Goldman Sachs Acquitted of All Charges. It's good to be Goldman:

"In an effort to uphold the rule that the Masters of the Universe can pretty much get away with anything simply because they’re the Masters of the Universe (see, also: Jobs, backdating), a federal judge has ruled that Goldman cannot be included in a lawsuit by Fannie Mae shareholders."

2. Dow Jones Insider Trading Watch: Two Charges, Dow Jones Director Scutinized. Hmm, this sounds a wee bit fishy to us:

"[T]he SEC filed a lawsuit against a Hong Kong couple, Kan King Wong and Charlotte Ka On Wong Leung, accusing them of insider trading. The couple had purchased $15 million of Dow Jones shares prior to the May 1st announcement."

They liquidated the position after News Corp.'s unsolicited offer to boy Dow Jones, for a tidy profit of $8.2 million. More details here.

3. In the Future of a Defamation Lawsuit, Dimon Is the Law. Here's a teaser, concerning the lawsuits that are flying between Dow Chemical and a former executive and board member: "It’s the legal equivalent of a John Woo action scene."

You can check out the full post here.

Please read this. Here are your study questions:

1. "How did a Goldman Sachs banker earn only $115,000?" (This one was from Professor Caron.)

2. "How can she afford to give away this much to charity -- does she have a sugar daddy wealthy spouse?"

3. "So what exactly does $55,000 in secondhand clothing look like?"

(On that last item, maybe we should ask our little sibling, Fashionista.)

P.S. With respect to the title of this post: Yes, we realize that the charity in question, Housing Works, funds its programs by running a high-end thrift store -- it's not giving designer duds directly to homeless people. We're just taking a little poetic or blogospheric license; please cut us some slack.

Tax Court: Goldman Sachs Investment Banker With $115k Salary Can't Take $55k Deduction for Charitable Donation of Used Clothing [TaxProf Blog]

Move over, Fire Island. See ya later, Provincetown. Rehoboth Beach, you're all washed up.

The gay destination of choice for summer 2007? This may come as a surprise to you, but it's 125 Broad Street, New York, New York -- home of the estimable law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell (plus the ACLU's LGBT Rights Project).

From Aaron Charney, the plaintiff in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell:

I am informed by numerous sources that David Braff (at right), on behalf of certain gay S&C partners, circulated a memorandum stating that such partners are pleased with the work environment at S&C.

What exactly makes Sullivan such a fabulous workplace for gays? Is it the subsidized gym? The proximity to S&C client Goldman Sachs, home to countless cute banker boys with seven-figure incomes? The complimentary cosmos served in the firm cafeteria?

If you have a copy of this memo, please send it our way, by email.

We're looking forward to seeing it. But Charney seems less than impressed:

Braff’s memo directly misses the point. My complaint concerns the discrimination and retaliation perpetrated by S&C against me. S&C clearly has no defense against the allegations enumerated in my Complaint and instead seeks to muddy the waters by trying to divert people’s attention away from the issue at hand. S&C’s campaign of diversion is the latest example of S&C’s unwilling[ness] to enforce the firm office manual’s anti-discrimination policy and confirms why I was left with no choice but to pursue this legal matter.

Charney's willingness to speak freely about the case -- or to try it in the court of public opinion, as his critics claim -- may explain why he seems to be winning the PR war, at least at the current time. In our reader poll, which is still ongoing, about two-thirds of respondents support him over S&C.

(But that is down somewhat from the 75 percent support that Charney enjoyed earlier in the afternoon. Could an anti-Aaron backlash be developing?)

Update: One of you has posted what appears to be the gay partners' memo in the comments. Thanks!

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Once again, no news. But something might happen today, if the first mover tries to lowball the market. Friday afternoons are the optimal time for breaking bad news.

We never tire of saying this: As soon as you learn of a bonus announcement, even if completely uncorroborated, please email us. We will then go investigate.

This is true even if the bonus announcement is just something you see on a message board. We check the message boards regularly; but when it comes to big bonus news, the faster word gets out, the better. Don't worry about sending us a duplicative message. We'd rather receive lots of emails with the same tip than be even half an hour late in reporting a key announcement.

In the meantime, as everyone frets, it's important to maintain a sense of perspective. Earlier this week, we reminded you Biglaw associates that things could be worse. An in-house lawyer in the Midwest is overjoyed just to get a second microwave in his break room. So be grateful for your bonus, even if it's not as large as you expected.

But if you don't find that persuasive, let's approach the issue from the other side: Why are you getting so worked up over your bonuses? They're piddling!

If you want to talk about serious cash, consider what Wall Street CEOs are expected to receive as bonuses this year. Or if that's too grandiose a comparison -- after all, they're CEOs of huge multinational corporations -- check out the reported bonuses going to some four dozen Goldman Sachs employees.

We feel your pain. We wish we found finance fascinating too.

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of bonuses (scroll down)

Our big sibling reports on the departure of high-finance hottie Suzanne Nora Johnson from Goldman Sachs, the obscenely profitable investment bank. Johnson, who served on the firm's 23-member management committee, was the highest-ranking woman at Goldman Sachs.*

And as the WSJ Law Blog notes, in a post entitled Associates, You Too Can Become a Master of the Universe, Johnson is a former lawyer:

Before joining Goldman in 1985, Johnson (USC, Harvard Law) was an associate at Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett and clerked on the Second Circuit.

Anyone know which judge Johnson clerked for? If that jurist is still living, Johnson -- who earned a cool $17.2 million last year (eat your hearts out, Biglaw partners) -- should foot the bill for the judge's official portrait.

(While we're correcting the titles of Law Blog posts, "spritely" should be replaced by "sprightly" back in this post. As far as we know, the elfin Erwin Chemerinsky did not participate in the KSR v. Teleflex argument.)

* Goldman Sachs has no relationship or connection whatsoever with Goldmansex.com -- other than to golden shower rain on that poor website's parade.

Top Goldman Gal Dumps Bank [DealBreaker]
Associates, You Too Can Become a Master of the Universe [WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Because $7 Million a Year Isn't Enough for Them

Partners at top investment bank Goldman Sachs take home an average of $7 million a year. But not content with that, they've decided to chase after a small businessman, who's just trying to make an honest living.

From the WSJ Law Blog:

[Goldman Sachs is involved in an] ongoing battle with Goldman Advertisement BV, a Netherlands-based adult-entertainment directory.... Goldman argued [in a National Arbitration Forum proceeding] that goldmansex.com would cause confusion and contained links to objectionable “adult” material. The NAF agreed with the investment bank, and goldmansex.com is no more.

Say it ain't so! Who would confuse the world's leading investment bank with a porn providers' directory? (Our big brother blog, which covered this story back in July, agrees.)

"Goldman" is a last name that strikes us as pretty generic, and "sex" is, well, sex. GS's position strikes us as weak, whether viewed from a cybersquatting or trademark law perspective. And there's more:

Rob Muller, the owner of goldmansex.com, tells the Law Blog in an email that the name has nothing to do with the investment bank; instead, it came from his nickname “Goldman,” which his friends gave him because they “thought I was always lucky in my life.”...

After the NAF ruling, Muller pressed his luck and continued to use another domain name it owned — goldmEnsex.com (emphasis added). Last week, according to Muller, he received a fax from the NAF informing him that Goldman Sachs had started a new proceeding against his company.

Frivolous litigation arbitration. Why can't the banking behemoth just laugh it off, and let poor Rob Muller go on his merry way? Consider this:

“Goldmansex was in a completely different business than GS, with no chance of confusion, we were not referring to Goldman Sachs on our website, the site had a complete different look and feel and we own a valid trademark in the domain name,” says Muller. “The only similarity between Goldman Sachs and Goldmensex is the verbal equivalence.” He adds: “Furthermore Goldmensex is not a porn site; it is an advertisement portal for adult entertainers offering information very similar to information offered by Google and Yellow Pages.”

And the verbal equivalence isn't even that great. "Goldman Sachs" sounds like "Goldman Sex" only if you pronounce it with a really heavy Russian accent.

This is so wrong. Rob Muller needs your help, ATL readers. Anyone looking for a good pro bono [sic] project?

After Taking Down Goldmansex, Goldman Takes On Goldmensex [WSJ Law Blog]
There Is No Sex in Goldman Sachs [DealBreaker]