但这起诉讼本身同样引发了疑问。诉讼涉及2006年通过一家中介机构出售给澳大利亚地方委员会的“固定比例债务债券(Constant Proportion Debt Obligations,简称CPDO)。为什么标普、穆迪(Moody's)以及惠誉(Fitch)等机构,因其为处于次贷危机核心的交易给出的评级饱受争议,却未在其他地方被判应负法律责任?
Many cases have been brought. But the agencies have argued in the US that they act in a role that some describe as equivalent to a restaurant or film critic. The agencies say they offer ratings based on opinions, and as such they are protected by the US Constitution’s guarantee of free speech. Any research carries heavy disclaimers to that effect.
此前还有多起类似诉讼。但这些评级机构在美国的法庭上辩解称,他们所扮演的角色如同某些人形容的餐厅或者电影评论人。这些机构指出,它们基于自身观点给出评级,因此受美国宪法中的言论自由权保护。它们发布的任何研究报告都附有严格的免责声明。
Lawyers say all the agencies have long shown they will fight tooth and nail to defend this right and have shown they are successfully able to do this in the US and other jurisdictions.
律师们指出,所有评级机构长期以来都展现出了竭尽全力维护自身言论自由的决心,并在美国及其他地区成功地做到了这一点。
【信用评级机构或面临新一轮诉讼】相关文章:
★ 美国大选与金价
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15