| Project/Area Number |
24530097
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Civil law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Seijo University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2012-04-01 – 2016-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2015)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥4,550,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,050,000)
Fiscal Year 2014: ¥1,170,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000、Indirect Cost: ¥270,000)
Fiscal Year 2013: ¥1,690,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,300,000、Indirect Cost: ¥390,000)
Fiscal Year 2012: ¥1,690,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,300,000、Indirect Cost: ¥390,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 格付会社 / 民事責任 / 比較法 / 金融商品取引法 / ドットフランク法 / 証券市場 / ゲートキーパー / ドッドフランク法 / IOSCO / 欧州委員会 / 証券化商品 / アナリスト |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
As a conclusion of my research is that the civil responsibility of the credit rating agencies depends on whether its contract is existed or not, official or non-official rating.As for the non-official rating, it is estimated that the credit rating agencies are not responsible for general investor and the nation. But for the official ratings, even if internal proceedings are same, it might cause the damages and tort because there exits the contract between clients and the credit rating agency. Same time, if the understanding of the basic conditions is different, there would be damages also. In that case, there is causality between the negligence and damages. As a result, there might be responsible for the credit rating agencies, concerning the ratings.
In this way, in my research, I would classify into two categories of the credit rating,I pointed out that there exits the gap of the civil responsibility.
|
