it’s getting close
26 replies (most recent on top)
Because they are the ones responsible for not doing proper due diligence
Why is everyone so caught up in whether the current ELT will remain in place or not? Corporate misconduct, and the associated liability thereof, doesn’t disappear just because the faces at the top change.
FactSet cannot be indemnified for behavior that they have chosen to continue to engaged in.
By the time this goes to court, the current ELT will be gone. Agreed that the potential liability for FDS is huge (billions!) if they were to lose but it’s a long way off. I disagree with poster who thinks it’s a none issue. The judge seems open to the plaintiffs arguments and has ruled in their favor on most issues so far. The risk for FDS is not the law suit but more would it affect interest from a potential acquirer. Not sure any would want to take on the potential risk of losing the suit even if the odds are small.
Judge is open to increasing class size. The potential liability is huge. Ultimately it will depend on if fds is indemnified by s and p for unrecorded liabilities. I assume fds attorneys would have included that in the deal so little risk for fds
You must be European, work for Bloomberg, or both, @4vh+1jn1wrent. All of this will take years to play out. FDS has far bigger immediate issues, like minimal ASV growth other than price. CUSIP gives FDS a fighting chance. As for being a “shill”, you are just wrong.
Nice passionate defense, but let’s not pretend the CUSIP lawsuit is a non-event. The case has survived motions to dismiss, which means the court sees enough merit for it to proceed. That’s not “nuisance lawsuit” territory. It’s a legitimate antitrust challenge involving critical infrastructure and licensing practices that the DOJ, SEC, and industry participants have expressed concern about for years.
You’re right that reserves need to be “probable and estimable”—but if you think that standard is static, you’re missing how materiality evolves as litigation risk increases and discovery moves forward.
Calling people “scare posters” for pointing out publicly available legal realities makes you look like a shill. And if you’re that confident, maybe ask Legal what happens if the plaintiffs get class certification or if the court decides to scrutinize the monopoly rents being extracted from identifiers that have become a utility in financial infrastructure.
There’s a difference between trolling and not drinking the internal Kool-Aid. Worth keeping in mind.
RE CUSIP - these “scare” posts are just not true. If you post when you don’t know the rules, reserves cannot be put on the books if they are not “probable and estimable”. Nuisance lawsuits do happen, especially with acquisitions in Europe, but are not necessarily disclosable if not “probable and estimable”. Try something new: actually ask the Legal or the Controllership about this!! CUSIP is growing faster than expected and is more profitable than expected. It was sold due to a regulatory requirement as a condition for S&P to get its IHS Markit deal approved. If you have a short position in FactSet, that’s fine, but please stop trying to scare people with factually incorrect “scare” posts. Also, please do not assume that everyone who does acquisitions is stupid. It’s really annoying, and if it were not for CUSIP, your bonus would be a fraction of what it was. If you work at FactSet, you could actually ask the head of regulatory affairs, the controller or the head of corporate development about the deal, by the way. Wouldn’t that be smarter than looking like some sort of “short” troll?
FactSet acquired the CUSIP monopoly, and with it, all the baggage. Industry frustration didn’t disappear—it just found a new target. Apparently, no one saw that coming.
Factset has never disclosed the law suit. It’s probably not material.
Bases on latest court filings , they are going to have to settle. At some point , they will have to disclose potential liability to street Too many clients hate Cusip regime. It’s not fact sets fault. Only thing is they were aware of the hatred when they bought it since they at one time were one of the haters I guess they were willing to take in the risk to own a monopoly
The ELT members who pushed this deal are long gone. It will be swept under the rug.
Assume deal with s&P provided indemnification for liabilities. Otherwise, someone is in deep doo doo
GC is new. It’s his problem now.
If that is true, some lawyers failed in their due diligence on the original deal and heads will fly. I guess this is a layoffs blog so makes sense although I don’t know if it includes outside attorneys. Someone missed a huge potential liability.
Billions!!! Seriously ? that sounds a bit unbelievable. Why haven’t analysts noted it yet?
In the US, ISIN is just [“US”]+[CUSIP]+[Check Digit], all of the CUSIP licensing costs and restrictions still apply. In the EU the European Commission forced CUSIP Global Services to cease charging for US ISINs, but this is still a big issue in the US.
Other identifier types don’t have a monopoly via SEC regulatory capture, don’t cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for a license for use and redistribution, don’t require intrusive systems audits, and don’t force licensees to comply with restricting further distribution. CUSIP does all of the above.
This has lead to legislative and regulatory pressure against CUSIP via the Financial Data Transparency Act, as well as a federal anti-trust class action lawsuit that could cost FactSet billions of dollars in penalties and/or settlements.
bit dramatic to call cusip a cancer- do you feel the same about sedol, isin, any of the tons of market IDs out there?
Do you get out much?
CUSIP is a cancer on the financial industry and will go down in flames taking your beloved hypocritical “open data” FactSet down with it. The industry will pi-s on your graves.
It’s spelled CUSIP. But you are correct. It’s a very successful business and continues to grow. Once the information on its financials became public, it led to a class action suit. Not sure what GC or CFO have to do with your comment.
You 100% did not hear anything about CUISP from our CFO or our GC. Stop coming here and spreading false information just to cause panic in people. CUISP continues to be one of our key revenue drivers and is outperforming every goal the board and company put in front of them, year over year. If you don’t understand the ABA or the business model, then please keep your ignorance to yourself.
Where you getting this from ? Nothing public
GC , CFO
Class action law suit going to trial. This can be costly. Whoever approved this deal is already gone so not sure who takes the fall
What is getting close? Was most expensive acquisition in company history..