What a Tangled Web We Weave: Conflicts in Rating Agency Liability

Hoggard, Nicholas

doi:10.4337/cilj.2016.02.08

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most obviously this is the case with Deceit, which relies on a four point test according to Viscount Maugham 17 : 1) The representation of a fact, 2) Knowledge that the fact was false, 3) An intention that the plaintiff should act on that representation 4) The plaintiff did act to their detriment. Hoggard (2016) states that intention, according to Woollin, includes oblique intention, that is to say it is sufficient that the tortfeasor know that the plaintiff would almost certainly act on the representation. Hoggard considers the specific case of a statutory regulation pertaining to financial ratings agencies and its relation to the existing Tort of deceit.…”

Section: Intent In Tortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definitions of intent suitable for algorithms

Ashton¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intent modifies an actor's culpability of many types wrongdoing. Autonomous Algorithmic Agents have the capability of causing harm, and whilst their current lack of legal personhood precludes them from committing crimes, it is useful for a number of parties to understand under what type of intentional mode an algorithm might transgress. From the perspective of the creator or owner they would like ensure that their algorithms never intend to cause harm by doing things that would otherwise be labelled criminal if committed by a legal person. Prosecutors might have an interest in understanding whether the actions of an algorithm were internally intended according to a transparent definition of the concept. The presence or absence of intention in the algorithmic agent might inform the court as to the complicity of its owner. This article introduces definitions for direct, oblique (or indirect) and ulterior intent which can be used to test for intent in an algorithmic actor.

show abstract

Section: Intent In Tortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definitions of intent suitable for algorithms

Ashton¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Solving Investors’ Problems with Access to Evidence in Damages Litigation: Suggestions for a Future Issuer Liability Regime

Yli-Kankahila

2024

Eur Bus Org Law Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Private enforcement’s role in the European secondary securities market is narrow. Issuer companies’ civil liability for violations of the inside information disclosure obligation is no exception. While trying to avoid the shadow of the US class action institution, European scholarship has long explored ways to increase the role of private enforcement in the securities market. Harmonising issuer liability is one of the suggestions to create a more prominent role for private enforcement. Even though harmonising issuer liability would be a welcome option for legal certainty and investor protection, it seems unlikely to happen in the near future. As an initial step towards potential harmonisation, this article analyses credit rating agencies’ (CRAs) liability and liability for competition law violations from the viewpoint of information asymmetry in litigation. It evaluates whether the legislative solutions in the CRA III Regulation and the Competition Damages Directive regarding plaintiffs’ access to evidence could be used as models for a potential issuer liability regime. The article finds that the choices made in the Competition Damages Directive could serve as viable models for issuer liability. The provisions in that Directive solve the information asymmetry between the plaintiff and the defendant by granting the plaintiff access to evidence in litigation through a court order.

show abstract

What a Tangled Web We Weave: Conflicts in Rating Agency Liability

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Definitions of intent suitable for algorithms

Definitions of intent suitable for algorithms

Solving Investors’ Problems with Access to Evidence in Damages Litigation: Suggestions for a Future Issuer Liability Regime

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About