Judge Rejects Credit Rating Firms? Free-Speech Claims
This is a discussion on Judge Rejects Credit Rating Firms? Free-Speech Claims within the Law News forum, part of the FORUM INFORMATION category; As we have studiously noted, ratings firms have gotten sued left and right by investors who claim the firms issued ...
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
News
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,438
|
![]() As we have studiously noted, ratings firms have gotten sued left and right by investors who claim the firms issued misleading opinions about mortgage-backed securities and were partly to blame for the financial crisis. (Here’s one post on the rash of litigation against ratings firms and another noting that the SEC chief favors lowering the barriers to suing ratings firms.) Ratings firms often have cloaked themselves in the Constitution, claiming that their ratings are mere opinions protected by the First Amendment. And courts in the past have held that investors can not sue on the alleged grounds that ratings are too high or too low, unless, that is, plaintiffs can also show that particular ratings were issued with “actual malice.” But on Wednesday, Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin dealt a blow to ratings firms, rejecting a free-speech defense asserted by Moody’s Investors Services and Standard & Poor’s. See the opinion here. The suit alleges the two ratings services issued misleading ratings to a $5.86 billion investment vehicle that collapsed in 2007. Scheindlin acknowledged that ratings typically are “matters of public concern,” protected by the First Amendment from liability. However, the protection doesn’t apply, she wrote, “where a rating agency has disseminated their ratings to a select group of investors rather than to the public at large,” as the plaintiffs in the case alleged. The ruling is one of the first to interpret whether the First Amendment applies to ratings of certain securities, such as mortgage-backed securities, which tend to be rated as discrete issuances for investors as opposed to more general ratings of corporate bonds. “Her decision breaks new ground on the issue of whether the First Amendment applies to ratings of privately offered securities,” says New York attorney David Grais. “The court’s ruling on the First Amendment was based purely on plaintiffs’ allegations, and we are hopeful the court will review the issue once the true facts are before it,” said Michael Adler, a Moody’s spokesperson. And S& P spokesman noted the court dismissed all but one of the plaintiffs’ 11 claims. “We are confident that we will prevail on the remaining claim,” he said. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmark & Share |
| Tags |
| financial crisis, first amendment, misleading opinions, misleading ratings, mortgage-backed securities, ratings firms, suing ratings firms |
«
Same-Sex Couples to Marry in Maine (Gay Marriage Law)
|
We Lov Dov, Part III: American Apparel to Shed 1,500 Workers
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| U.S. Supreme Court Term to Tackle Free Speech, Business Regulation, Criminal Law | forum_admin | Courts, Decisions, Appeals | 1 | Oct 5th, 2009 04:46 PM |
| How stop Internet bullying of children without violating free speech? | forum_admin | Internet Law | 0 | Sep 30th, 2009 09:57 PM |
| Washington judge rejects challenge to R-71 | forum_admin | Law News | 0 | Sep 10th, 2009 07:35 PM |
| U.S. v. Canada When It Comes to Free Speech | WSJ_law_blog | Human Rights | 0 | Jun 12th, 2008 12:00 PM |
| Subprime Legal: Bond Rating Firms Close to Settlement With Cuomo | WSJ_law_blog | Law News | 0 | Jun 3rd, 2008 03:50 PM |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 AM.










Linear Mode

