A senior Justice Department official said in February 2015 that S&P had admitted facts that make clear its own unlawful role in the financial crisis.

Why this label

The department's release says S&P accepted an agreed statement of facts. In it S&P admits that business concerns affected its decisions on rating models and that relevant staff knew in 2007 that many loans in mortgage deals were delinquent^S1. That part is supported. The step from admitted facts to an admitted unlawful role is the official's own reading. The release does not say S&P admitted breaking any law^S1. S&P said on the same day that the settlement contained no findings of violations of law^S2, and NPR reported the same wording^S8. No court ruled on the fraud counts. The admitted facts are on the record, but the unlawful role is a prosecutor's characterisation, not a finding.

Current procedural position

Civil case resolved by settlement on 3 February 2015 with an agreed statement of facts and no findings of violations of law^S1S2. No trial or judgment on the merits.

Evidence score: 83 of 100

The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of S&P Global Ratings. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.

Timeline

1. 6 February 2013Reuters reports the Justice Department civil suit against S&P^S5
2. 3 February 2015Settlement of US$1.375 billion with agreed statement of facts^S1
3. 3 February 2015S&P says the settlement contains no findings of violations of law^S2

Related cases

• United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. and Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLCUS District Court for the Central District of California. Civil. Not published.Stage: Settled on 3 February 2015 together with claims by 19 states and the District of Columbia.
  • 16 July 2013 Motion to dismiss denied by Judge David O. Carter, as reported by the Daily Journal^S7
  • 3 February 2015 Settlement of US$1.375 billion with agreed statement of facts^S1

Responses

• McGraw Hill Financial and S&P Ratings, 3 February 2015: The company said the settlement contained no findings of violations of law by it or its ratings units.^S2

Revision history

• 25 October 2026 Assessment first published with label Partly supported.

Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.

Sources

1. S1Tier A Justice Department and State Partners Secure $1.375 Billion Settlement with S&P for Defrauding Investors in the Lead Up to the Financial CrisisUS Department of Justice. Government press release. 3 February 2015.Supports the amount, the split, the agreed facts and the retraction of the retaliation claim. It does not state that S&P admitted a violation of law.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
2. S2Tier B McGraw Hill Financial And S&P Ratings Reach Settlements With DOJ, Attorneys General Of 19 States And District Of Columbia And With CalPERSMcGraw Hill Financial. Company statement. 3 February 2015.Company statement giving the payments, including US$125 million to CalPERS, and saying there were no findings of violations of law. It is the company's own account.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
3. S8Tier C S&P Pays Nearly $1.38B To Settle Mortgage Crisis ClaimsNPR. Press report. 3 February 2015.Repeats the company's no findings wording and says the settlements are not subject to court approval. No byline or date is shown and the date comes from the URL.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
4. S5Tier C US launches civil action against S&P over pre-crisis ratingsReuters, republished by Daily FT. Press report. 6 February 2013.Reuters wire copy with no individual byline. Supports S&P's denial and its past free speech argument as paraphrased by Reuters.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
5. S7Tier C Judge denies Standard & Poor's bid to dismiss $5 billion civil suitDaily Journal. Press report. 19 July 2013.Report by Henry Meier on the denial of the motion to dismiss late on Tuesday 16 July 2013. The reasoning is behind a paywall and the order itself was not read.

Other claims about S&P Global Ratings

• Outdated82
  Lawyers for S&P argued in 2013 that the Justice Department suit was retaliation for the August 2011 downgrade of the United States credit rating.
  Press report, 4 September 20132 records citedCorporate status
• Unresolved63
  S&P said in February 2013 that the Justice Department suit was without factual or legal merit, and it had argued in investor cases that its ratings were opinions protected as free speech.
  Company statement, 6 February 20133 records citedFraud
• Supported93
  The SEC said in September 2024 that S&P Global Ratings agreed to pay a US$20 million penalty for failures to keep electronic communications and admitted the facts in its order.
  Regulator statement, 3 September 20242 records citedDisclosure