Updated from 11:39 a.m. ET to include closing share prices and additional analyst commentary
NEW YORK (
Moody's Investors Service
(MCO - Get Report)
Standard & Poor's
shares were rising on Monday after both firms and
(MS - Get Report)
settled civil fraud lawsuits related to two failed investment vehicles.
The settlement's are a significant development for the firms as they try to expunge litigation tied to pre-crisis bond ratings, however, the prospect of federal and state fraud lawsuits remains a significant legal risk, according to some analysts.
Late on Friday, Moody's, S&P and Morgan Stanley settled investor lawsuits brought forward by
Abu Dhabi Commerical Bank
and King County, Washington surrounding two structured investment vehicles called Cheyne and Rhinebridge.
The suits, filed in 2008 and 2009, claimed that Moody's and S&P inflated ratings for the SIV's, while Morgan Stanley conveyed ratings it knew were inaccurate. Abu Dhabi's lawsuit had been set to go to trial on May 6.
The settlement is crucial for Moody's and S&P because, after years of legal back and forth, the plaintiffs' only remaining litigation surrounded claims of civil fraud.
Had Abu Dhabi or King County proven Moody's and S&P's bond ratings were fraudulent, it might have led to a potentially crippling flurry of litigation from other investors.
Shares in Moody's rose over 8% in Monday trading to $59.69, while McGraw-Hill shares rose nearly 3% to $53.45. Morgan Stanley shares gained nearly 4% to $22.21.
The settlement may also come as a blow for some investors betting on the eventual demise of ratings agencies such as David Einhorn of hedge fund
in a February earnings call Moody's was the firm's worst performing short position in 2012.
"Our biggest loser on the short side last year was Moody's," Einhorn
in February, on a quarterly conference call for
, an insurer affiliated with the hedge fund.
Prior to that, Einhorn's most recent direct reference to the trade came in response to an audience question at an
October investor conference
"It's a matter of time before they all disappear," Einhorn said of the rating agencies, at the
Value Investing Congress
Einhorn said earlier in 2013 Greenlight Capital had shorted shares of McGraw-Hill, after the
Department of Justice
against Standard & Poor's in February.
When asked if Friday's settlement impacted short positions in Moody's and McGraw-Hill, Jonathan Gasthalter, a Greenlight Capital spokesperson, declined to comment.
(BRK.A - Get Report)
Moody's largest shareholder
, according to
Securities and Exchange Commission
Moody's shares have gained over 40% in the last 12-months to new five-year highs.
"McGraw-Hill has settled the Abu Dhabi and King County cases without any admission of liability or wrongdoing," Jason Feuchtwanger, a company spokesperson, said in an e-mail. "The terms of the settlement are confidential," Feuchtwanger added.
"We are pleased to have settled these cases," Mark Lake, a Morgan Stanley spokesperson said, of the investor lawsuits claiming negligence. Moody's didn't immediately return an e-mail seeking comment.
Moody's and McGraw-Hill may not be in the clear yet, according to Mark Palmer an analyst at BTIG Research, who has long said litigation poses a serious risk to the financial position of both firms.
Palmer highlights a $5 billion civil fraud charge brought by the DoJ against McGraw-Hill as a significant risk for all rating agencies, even after settlements surrounding investor litigation. Reports from the
Wall Street Journal
indicate the DoJ may look at similar charges against Moody's, while New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has begun a probe on pre-crisis mortgage backed security bond ratings.
"Prior to Feb. 4, the most acute legal risk facing [Moody's] was represented by the fraud cases brought by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, King County, Washington and others related to the Cheyne and Rhinebridge structured investment vehicles (SIVs)," Palmer wrote in a Monday
"We believe MCO should be particularly concerned about the potential for Schneiderman to file a lawsuit against it under the Martin Act," Palmer added in Monday's note, citing the state's lower legal burdens of proof to prosecute financial fraud.