alleged against any of the defendants appear to be based solely on the purchase or sale of the Medium Term Notes, however, no claims are dismissed. 117 . See MS/BoNY Mem. al 9-12; RA Mem. at 2-4; Pl. Opp. at 16-18. 118 . See RA Mem. at 7-9, 26. 119 . See, e.g. Compuware Corp. v. Moody's Inv. Servs., Inc., 499 F.3d 520, 529 (6th Cir.2007) (affirming the dismissal of claims against rating agencies brought on the basis of credit ratings on First Amendment grounds); Jefferson County Sch. Dist. No. R-I v. Moody's Inv. Servs., Inc., 175 F.3d 848, 856 (10th Cir.1999) (same); First Equity Corp. v. Standard & Poor’s Corp., 690 F.Supp. 256, 260 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (same). 120 . Compare Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Green-moss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761-62, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985) (<HOLDING>) and In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enters., Inc.,
holding that the plaintiffs speech was not a matter of public concern because it did not bring to light actual or potential wrongdoing or breach of public trust on the part of the defendant and others holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that a credit report published to five subscribers did not involve a matter of public concern because it was intended for a specific business audience holding in part that complaints focused on individual compensation do not involve a matter of public concern