http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.../articleshow/17194134.cms

Anyone else see something wrong with a government filing suit against a credit rating agency? Should they win I guess we can throw out the worthiness of those credit rating agencies as they will not have the freedom necessary to do their jobs anymore.

Hmmm, isn't this the same country that just tossed a bunch of geologist in prison because of an earthquake? I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

archaic: yes. they're also on the verge of following greece into a massive recession. their former PM also just got found guilty of tax fraud

but that ex pm isn't at jail atm since they try to keep jails empty and some other things (filing complaint etc).

Eh, considering both of those ratings agencies are essentially backward-looking, let 'em fry.

Well, there is a chance that the Italian court will refuse to go foward with the charges. Then there is also the fact that the US does not have to extradite people to italy on politically motivated charges or for situations that are not criminally liable in the US.

Had Italy chosen to sue S&P, Fitch over the leaks, I'd be open to hearing their position a bit more, the burden of proving that the case it worth bringing would be lower. Even criminal charges against the firms, but not invididual people therein would be more easily justified. However, a criminal prosecution of individuals within a firm deserves a higher burden of proof.

It is not enough that Italy be angry that their borrowing costs went up, they have to prove criminal wrongdoing. Possible? Maybe. It's false to say that this is a bad idea because of the effect it could have in the future, but I won't deny that Italy being the country to pursue criminal charges in a case like this one is troubling to me. In the Meredith Kercher case and in the earthquake scientists cases, Italy's court system has been held up to the light and found wanting (in my opinion).

I withhold judgement on this case, but with very real concerns. The prosecution in this case must prove malice aforethought on the part of the seven individuals. If they can show evidence of malice aforethought, then the case is probably worth hearing. According to the US Supreme Court, a prosecutor is responsible for pursuing justice. Sometimes this means not pursuing charges that you could probably convict on and sometimes it means pursuing charges that you may not be able to convict on, so the prosecutor doesn't need to prove his case for the case to be justified, he just has to present enough evidence that should be seen before a jury to justify bringing a case. Sometimes the pursuit of justice means letting the jury decide. Since I can see a situation in which evidence may exist of malice aforethought, I reserve my judgement until the prosecutor presents the evidence that has led to this case, but that is the evidence I will be looking for.

Not commenting on Italy per se, but there is a real question regarding the objectivity and independence of S&P and Moody's.

Regarding suing individuals at a firm rather than the firm.. that tends not to work (because of workers compensation laws and other things such as rules governing corporations). There are exceptions of course.

Note that Italian law and US law are probably not the same when it comes to litigation.