澳洲法院判决标普误导投资者
Standard & Poor’s misled investors by awarding its highest rating to a complex derivative product that collapsed in value less than two years after it was created by ABN Amro’s wholesale banking division, an Australian judge has ruled in a landmark case that paves the way for legal action in Europe.
澳大利亚一名法官在一个里程碑式的案件中裁决，标普(Standard & Poor)对荷兰银行(ABN Amro)批发银行部门创造的一种复杂衍生品的最高评级误导了投资者，该衍生产品在不到两年期间价值崩溃。此次判决为在欧洲采取法律行动铺平了道路。
In a damning verdict, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that S&P and ABN Amro had “deceived and “misled 12 local councils that bought triple-A rated constant proportion debt obligations (CPDOs) from an intermediary in 2006.
澳大利亚联邦法院在措辞严厉的判决书中表示，标普与荷兰银行对2006年从一家中介机构购买AAA评级固定比例债务债券(CPDO)的12个地方议会构成“欺骗和“误导。
The court said a “reasonably competent rating agency could not have given a triple A rating to the “grotesquely complicated securities. S&P and ABN’s wholesale banking arm, which is now owned by RBS, also published information and statements that were either “false or involved “negligent misrepresentations, Justice Jayne Jagot found.
该法院指出，一家“合理胜任的评级机构不至于对这种“复杂透顶的证券产品给出AAA评级。法官杰恩·简葛特(Jayne Jagot)表示，标普和荷兰银行批发银行部门（目前隶属苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)）还发布一些“虚假或者涉及“疏忽的失实陈述的信息和声明。
The 1,500-page ruling marks the first time a rating agency has faced a full trial over a structured finance product.
这份长达1500页的判决书标志着信用评级机构第一次由于一种结构性金融产品而面对全面庭审。
The Australian ruling led some investors to reassess their previously sanguine view of the legal landscape for the rating agencies. In early trading in New York, S&P’s parent McGraw-Hill fell more than 5 per cent, versus a broadly flat equity market. Moody’s fell more than 2.5 per cent.
澳大利亚的裁定使得一些投资者重新评估他们此前对评级机构在法律事务上的乐观看法。在纽约早盘交易中，标普母公司麦格劳希尔(McGraw-Hill)的股价下跌了5%以上，而整体上股市没有太大起伏。穆迪(Moody’s)股价跌幅也超过2.5%。
“This is a major blow to the rating agencies, which for years have had the benefit of profiting from the assignment of these ratings without ever being accountable to investors for those opinions, said Amanda Banton, the lawyer representing the councils. “No longer will rating agencies be able to hide behind disclaimers to absolve themselves from liability.
代表地方议会的律师阿曼达·班顿(Amanda Banton)说：“这对评级机构来说是一次重创，多年来这些机构在发布评级的时候对投资者从来都是不承担责任的，但现在评级机构再也不能躲在免责声明背后，使自己不承担任何赔偿责任了。
John Walker, executive director of IMF Australia, the listed litigation company that funded the action by the local authorities, said the ruling was likely to pave the way for “significant recoveries in Europe.
为地方议会的诉讼提供资金支持的上市诉讼公司——澳洲IMF的执行董事约翰·沃克(John Walker)表示，此次判决很可能为欧洲的“重大索赔官司铺平道路。
Yet lawyers outside Australia remained sceptical about how easy it would be to pursue similar claims in Europe or the US, where agencies have largely succeeded in batting away dozens of legal cases, arguing that their ratings are just opinions, protected by the US Constitution’s free speech guarantee and by disclaimers in their reports.
然而，其他国家的律师对欧洲和美国开展类似诉讼的可能性持怀疑态度，因为评级机构主张他们的评级只是一种观点，受到美国宪法言论自由保护，并且他们的报告中附有免责声明，这一辩护理由使他们基本上成功地抵挡数十起官司。
译者/王慧玲
Standard & Poor’s misled investors by awarding its highest rating to a complex derivative product that collapsed in value less than two years after it was created by ABN Amro’s wholesale banking division, an Australian judge has ruled in a landmark case that paves the way for legal action in Europe.
澳大利亚一名法官在一个里程碑式的案件中裁决，标普(Standard & Poor)对荷兰银行(ABN Amro)批发银行部门创造的一种复杂衍生品的最高评级误导了投资者，该衍生产品在不到两年期间价值崩溃。此次判决为在欧洲采取法律行动铺平了道路。
In a damning verdict, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that S&P and ABN Amro had “deceived and “misled 12 local councils that bought triple-A rated constant proportion debt obligations (CPDOs) from an intermediary in 2006.
澳大利亚联邦法院在措辞严厉的判决书中表示，标普与荷兰银行对2006年从一家中介机构购买AAA评级固定比例债务债券(CPDO)的12个地方议会构成“欺骗和“误导。
The court said a “reasonably competent rating agency could not have given a triple A rating to the “grotesquely complicated securities. S&P and ABN’s wholesale banking arm, which is now owned by RBS, also published information and statements that were either “false or involved “negligent misrepresentations, Justice Jayne Jagot found.
该法院指出，一家“合理胜任的评级机构不至于对这种“复杂透顶的证券产品给出AAA评级。法官杰恩·简葛特(Jayne Jagot)表示，标普和荷兰银行批发银行部门（目前隶属苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)）还发布一些“虚假或者涉及“疏忽的失实陈述的信息和声明。
The 1,500-page ruling marks the first time a rating agency has faced a full trial over a structured finance product.
这份长达1500页的判决书标志着信用评级机构第一次由于一种结构性金融产品而面对全面庭审。
The Australian ruling led some investors to reassess their previously sanguine view of the legal landscape for the rating agencies. In early trading in New York, S&P’s parent McGraw-Hill fell more than 5 per cent, versus a broadly flat equity market. Moody’s fell more than 2.5 per cent.
澳大利亚的裁定使得一些投资者重新评估他们此前对评级机构在法律事务上的乐观看法。在纽约早盘交易中，标普母公司麦格劳希尔(McGraw-Hill)的股价下跌了5%以上，而整体上股市没有太大起伏。穆迪(Moody’s)股价跌幅也超过2.5%。
“This is a major blow to the rating agencies, which for years have had the benefit of profiting from the assignment of these ratings without ever being accountable to investors for those opinions, said Amanda Banton, the lawyer representing the councils. “No longer will rating agencies be able to hide behind disclaimers to absolve themselves from liability.
代表地方议会的律师阿曼达·班顿(Amanda Banton)说：“这对评级机构来说是一次重创，多年来这些机构在发布评级的时候对投资者从来都是不承担责任的，但现在评级机构再也不能躲在免责声明背后，使自己不承担任何赔偿责任了。
John Walker, executive director of IMF Australia, the listed litigation company that funded the action by the local authorities, said the ruling was likely to pave the way for “significant recoveries in Europe.
为地方议会的诉讼提供资金支持的上市诉讼公司——澳洲IMF的执行董事约翰·沃克(John Walker)表示，此次判决很可能为欧洲的“重大索赔官司铺平道路。
Yet lawyers outside Australia remained sceptical about how easy it would be to pursue similar claims in Europe or the US, where agencies have largely succeeded in batting away dozens of legal cases, arguing that their ratings are just opinions, protected by the US Constitution’s free speech guarantee and by disclaimers in their reports.
然而，其他国家的律师对欧洲和美国开展类似诉讼的可能性持怀疑态度，因为评级机构主张他们的评级只是一种观点，受到美国宪法言论自由保护，并且他们的报告中附有免责声明，这一辩护理由使他们基本上成功地抵挡数十起官司。
译者/王慧玲
