Bloomberg Anywhere Login


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

S&P Case Should Stay in Connecticut Court, U.S. Says

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- McGraw-Hill Cos.’ Standard & Poor’s unit shouldn’t be allowed to move Connecticut’s lawsuit over ratings of securities to a federal court, the U.S. argued in a court filing.

McGraw-Hill, based in New York, filed so-called notices of removal in several courts to put the cases by Connecticut and other states under federal jurisdiction and combine them for pretrial matters, such as the exchange of evidence and questioning of witnesses.

“It is tempting to find federal jurisdiction every time a multibillion-dollar case with national implications arrives at the doorstep of a federal court,” the U.S. said in its filing yesterday in federal court in New Haven, Connecticut. “The jurisdiction of the federal district courts, however, is left to Congress, not to the discretion of the courts themselves.”

The lawsuits, filed by the attorneys general of 16 states and the District of Columbia, claim S&P violated state consumer-protection and unfair-trade-practices statues. The U.S., in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles, accuses S&P of inflating ratings on mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations.

McGraw-Hill argued in the Connecticut case that state-court action on the claims would “disrupt and supplant” regulation of S&P by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. McGraw-Hill also argued that the claims test the boundaries of the free-speech rights of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is a federal defense.

Jason Feuchtwanger, a spokesman for New York-based McGraw-Hill, didn’t immediately respond to messages yesterday seeking comment on the U.S. filing. McGraw-Hill previously said in a statement that the U.S. and state lawsuits are “meritless” and that its ratings reflected its best judgments.

The Connecticut case is Connecticut v. McGraw-Hill Cos., 13-00311, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut (New Haven). The U.S. case is U.S. v. McGraw-Hill Cos., 13-cv-00779, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

To contact the reporter on this story: Don Jeffrey in New York at

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at

Please upgrade your Browser

Your browser is out-of-date. Please download one of these excellent browsers:

Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera or Internet Explorer.