Moody's shareholders are now suing in federal court, saying that Moody's misrepresented the fact that its ratings are impartial. Once it became clear that Moody's was gaming its ratings, its share price plunged - 75% since February 2007.
The plaintiffs in the suit, led by a Teamsters union pension fund, cited newspaper articles chronicling occasions when Moody’s changed its rating in response to a customer’s complaint to keep the client’s business, replaced analysts seen as too cautious, or reassigned others after complaints by bankers....
In one instance, reported last year by the Financial Times, when Moody’s employees found a computer error had caused some debt ratings to be inflated, the company responded by changing the methodology it used rather than cutting the ratings.
In an October 2007 presentation to Moody’s directors, released last year by congressional investigators, Moody’s Chief Executive Officer Raymond McDaniel said adding more safeguards “does NOT solve the problem” of erosions in ratings integrity, and that “a certain complacency about ratings quality is inevitable.”
In response to the shareholder lawsuit, Moody's argued that its claims to independence and ratings integrity were just "puffery" - legalese for innocent exaggeration:
“Generalizations regarding integrity, independence and risk management amount to no more than puffery,” Moody’s said in court papers. As such, alleged “misstatements of this nature are insufficient to sustain a claim under the securities laws.”
But the judge is having none of it:
Taken together, U.S. District Judge Shirley Wohl Kram wrote in her order, the facts as alleged by the plaintiffs “belie defendants’ claims of independence and ratings integrity.” Similarly, she wrote, “the revelations that it altered ratings at the request of issuers called into question Moody’s claim that it ‘maintains independence in its relationship with issuers and other interested entities.’”
Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community
internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed.
For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
