Over at D&O Diary Friday, Kevin LaCroix took a look at two recent dismissals from two separate judges in subprime-related securities class actions filed in the Southern District of New York–the epicenter of both the credit crisis and many of the suits flowing out of it.

Both judges granted defendants' motions to dismiss because of a lack of specific factual allegations that the companies misled investors on exposure to mortgage-backed securities or that the companies were reckless in their investments. Instead, plaintiffs in both cases relied on a “backward-looking assessment” of mortgage-backed securities–but judges pointed out that hindsight is 20/20, especially when it comes to unprecedented financial meltdowns.

LaCroix concludes:

These two judges' unwillingness, in light of the magnitude of the financial calamity, to engage in “backward-looking assessments,” is a judicial predisposition that plaintiffs in many of these cases will have to struggle to overcome. Absent internal documents or confidential witness testimony showing internal company knowledge or information different from public statements, many other subprime and credit crisis cases may face the same fate as did the complaints in these two cases.

To view LaCroix's “interim scoreboard” of subprime and credit crisis-related dismissal motion rulings, click here.