The people involved 1) had a duty to understand the structure of the things they sold, and 2) have specific training meaning that they can't (realistically) say

The people involved 1) had a duty to understand the structure of the things they sold, and 2) have specific training meaning that they can't (realistically) say they were unable to understand them. If an engineer claimed not to understand the tools of their field they'd merely be trading one set of liability for another. If the same standards were applied to these people as are applied to the non-rich we'd agree that their university transcripts are proof that they understand the field and that their relationship with the people they recommended these investments to was "customer like" enough to show conflict of interest and misrepresentation. As for your process-protection theory, it doesn't hold up. Processes rule up until you have a reason to believe otherwise. You may normally delete email after three months but if you've been notified that the information in question is being sought as evidence in a trial all of a sudden your process has to change. If an engineer tells me he has a process and I show how that it is (dangerously) wrong he has a legal obligation to investigate and correct his recommendations. The ratings agencies had similar obligations and were given specific written evidence showing their claims to be incorrect. That they chose to ignore these communications means their process defense is worthless. And if they had a process that contributed to them not getting this information, that right there should be enough to show malfeasance from a financial organization.