In a First, SEC Fines Moody's Over Poor Controls, Unclear Rating Symbols
In two separate orders, Moody's agreed to terms including millions in penalties and future compliance reporting. It also will have to retain an outside compliance consultant.
August 29, 2018 at 04:37 PM
3 minute read
In the first enforcement action of its kind, Moody's Investors Services Inc. has agreed to pay $16.25 million to settle charges that it failed to adopt adequate internal controls and to apply clear and consistent credit rating symbols.
It marked the first time the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has filed an enforcement action involving rating symbol deficiencies, according to a statement from the SEC. Moody's, part of New York-based Moody's Corp., is one of the nation's largest credit ratings agencies. It neither admitted nor denied the charges in Tuesday's orders.
A statement from Moody's on Wednesday said, “We are pleased to have resolved these legacy matters, which reach back to 2010. Moody's Investors Service regularly reviews and refines its policies and procedures and is committed to maintaining strong controls around models used in the rating process.”
The settlement involved two separate cease-and-desist orders. In the first, the company agreed to pay $15 million to settle claims that some credit ratings on securities, including U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities, “failed to establish, maintain, enforce, and document an effective internal control structure” with regard to its rating methodology.
The order said the SEC had “cautioned” Moody's in 2010 regarding its obligation to establish effective internal controls over the procedures and methodologies that it used to determine credit ratings.
But, according to the commission, Moody's failed to establish and document an effective internal control structure for models that Moody's had outsourced from a corporate affiliate and used in rating RMBS from 2010 through 2013. In addition, Moody's failed to enforce existing internal controls that should have been applied to the models.
Moody's had to correct more than 650 RMBS ratings with a notional value exceeding $49 billion, due in part to errors in the models, according to the SEC. Also, in 54 instances, Moody's failed to document its rationale for issuing final RMBS ratings that deviated materially from model-implied ratings.
“Rating agencies play a critical role in our capital markets and need to have effective controls over their rating processes,” said a statement from Antonia Chion, associate director of the commission's Division of Enforcement. “As our order notes, the SEC put Moody's on notice about its internal controls obligations yet it did not develop an effective process to ensure the accuracy of the models.”
The order said Moody's agreed to hire an independent consultant acceptable to the SEC, who will review the company's internal controls and make recommendations within 180 days.
The company also must report on its compliance efforts and its implementation of the consultant's recommendations within 365 days from the order.
In the second order, the SEC said Moody's assigned ratings to combo notes—a type of structured finance vehicle backed by portfolios of corporate loans—that was inconsistent with other types of securities that used the same rating symbols.
The order said Moody's definition of credit risk did not adequately inform the users of its ratings about what the rating addressed. The unrated risk associated with a combo note, for example, was not limited to a discrete, noncredit feature, it said.
Moody's agreed to pay a $1.25 million penalty, to complete a comprehensive review of its internal controls related to credit ratings within 180 days, and to submit a written report documenting its compliance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJohn Deere Annual Meeting Offers Peek Into DEI Strife That Looms for Companies Nationwide
7 minute readWells Fargo and Bank of America Agree to Pay Combined $60 Million to Settle SEC Probe
Former Capital One Deputy GC Takes Legal Reins of AIG Spinoff
Ex-Six Flags CLO Lands New C-Suite Post—This Time as HR Chief
Trending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250