« The Pre-Election Mood: Enervation Over Innovation | Main | HP-Autonomy: A Red-Ink Bath for Everyone »

November 12, 2012

Comments

Richard E. Brodsky

Jim, every finding of negligence necessarily is made after the events have occurred. Does that mean that all findings of "negligence" or "no negligence" are necessarily wrong because they are made after the fact? Of course not. Presumably S&P will appeal, and the issue will be whether there was enough evidence to support the court's finding. This is not the end of the world. Instead, it is, at least at first look, an incredibly diligent effort by the judge to determine whether S&P should have known that its assumptions were not reasonably based n fact. Since when should a participant in the financial markets get away with that kind of skulduggery?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Never miss a post
Please enter all required fields
Correct invalid entries

  • © 2007-2018 James R Peterson Special thanks: Francine McKenna. Always with love: Kat and Julie. In memory: Bob White, Stuart Kadison