Federal judge asks: Why haven’t any top executives been prosecuted for financial crisis?

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Actually ...

the evidence (the emails) are already discovered and the 1st Amendment argument of "puffery" is making its way through court ... though the 2nd Circuit has already ruled.

You really need to show a conspiracy between the agencies and the financial firms in order to prove the case. A simple showing that the agencies took money from the firms for higher ratings probably would not work.

I don't know ... I seem to recall an email in which a rater-grunt raised a concern about the viability/reliability of their ratings, his management essentially told him that they current and future revenues were based on their willingness to produce positive (inflated) rating ... and that bankers came to them, "negotiating" ratings ... establishing a quid pro quo. It's not a leap to tie the banks and raters into a conspiracy to defraud the end purchaser. Much like, the fraud cases brought by the banks against real estate appraisers and mortgage brokers, where the brokers sought out and paid those appraisers willing to provide inflated appraisals.

The rating is a box to check, but the deal is made on the numbers. The ratings agencies didn't generate the numbers.

This was the holding in the 2nd Circuit case; but many commentators (including the DoJ) are skeptical.

I have a half-formed idea that would be a longshot, but it would have the virtue of being the ultimate hail mary for securities law. My idea is to go after the law firms that issued opinions to shield financial firms from prosecution. Those firms were the necessary conduits for fraud to occur. I'll admit that I'm not quite sure how this would work since I haven't really done the necessary research to find a theory for prosecution. It just occurred to me that the lawyers were integral to every deal and could provide a bulwark against future fraud if they had to face prosecution for this sort of thing.

Novel ... But an opinion is an opinion. The most that can come out of that would be a heck of a mal-practice suit. No?

Its good kicking this around with someone versed in the law. I would love for a bunch of attorney log onto a blog and argue prosecution/litigation strategies with the intent to "discover" viable ways to navigate this minefield. But as with most things, "those talking don't know; and those that know, ain't talking."