In the wake of the financial crisis a new wave of litigation looms. This paper presents an “aloof” analysis of legal arguments involved in securitisation cases. First, it identifies the relevant facts. Second, it focuses on key legal liability elements for fraudulent/negligent statements in securitisation litigation. In so doing, it identifies the aspects where public debate and legal argument differ, and where they concur; and it takes a broad view on the implications of tipping the balance one way or the other. It is concluded that the current wave of litigation has consequences for the long-term future of the financial industry.
SEC v Goldman Sachs and the new wave of (asset-backed) securities litigation. What are the arguments? What is at stake?
RAMOS MUNOZ, DAVID
2010
Abstract
In the wake of the financial crisis a new wave of litigation looms. This paper presents an “aloof” analysis of legal arguments involved in securitisation cases. First, it identifies the relevant facts. Second, it focuses on key legal liability elements for fraudulent/negligent statements in securitisation litigation. In so doing, it identifies the aspects where public debate and legal argument differ, and where they concur; and it takes a broad view on the implications of tipping the balance one way or the other. It is concluded that the current wave of litigation has consequences for the long-term future of the financial industry.File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
