Directors and lawyers working for financial services firms have been dishing out plenty of blame for the credit crunch crisis engulfing their industry. Research by law firm Eversheds found that the single biggest reason why such problems have beset collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), asset-backed securities and sub-prime mortgages is over-complexity and a lack of transparency. More than 40% blame mis-selling, while more than one-fifth say they were simply overvalued.

These comments seem all the more remarkable given that almost two-thirds of the survey respondents were involved in some way in CDO/sub-primes. Fault lies with the ratings agencies, according to two-thirds of respondents, but the investment banks must take their share of the blame too, according to 56%. And for good measure, more than 40% blame the auditors for not checking fair value accounting. Harsh but fair, perhaps, almost one-third simply say that uneducated buyers had no one to blame but themselves: caveat emptor.

So what now? “There are a lot of claims over a limited pot of collateral,” says Matthew Allen, insurance and financial services litigation partner at Eversheds. “Many investors are in loss-mitigation mode, which is a natural precursor to disputes about value and transparency.”

Indeed, around two-thirds now expect legal action against investment banks and sizeable minorities expect the auditors, collateral managers and lawyers to be sued, too. One-quarter expect criminal proceedings to be brought by the Serious Fraud Office and others.

More than 60% think one consequence is that regulators will take the ratings agencies into their remit. Allen isn’t sure that’s the right response, but he does say that ratings agencies have “a very cosy relationship with certain banks and there is a perceived need to address this.”