When I say "only," I'm not referring to a choice between attempting to recover money from Steven in the criminal case, versus attempting to recover money via other means.
I mean, why should I have submitted "only" my name for restitution, and not the names of every shareholder reflected on the NOBO/OBOO lists?
Yes, yes, I know: the judge would have had a list of "victims," but would not have had the cost basis for the shares they purchased. BFD. Those amounts could be determined with minimal effort by...well, just about by anyone who could read and write, but which would seemingly exclude those in the SEC or the DOJ.
What if that had happened? What if the total shareholder loss is, for example, $750 million? Would the defendants have been ordered to make restitution in that amount?
Of course, the defendants could prove they obviously didn't steal that much money. Then what? Make the defendants pay for what others stole?
The stock forfeiture order required the conduct of proper discovery, in order to determine if there was cause to commence proceedings on behalf of third parties. In this case, that would have required an examination of the Cede shares. And for some (other than shareholders), that could prove to be problematic. So again, I think it is premature to conclude that this is over.
An Attorney General, dedicated to transparency, will not let shareholders fund the costs of their on-going investigations, and take the losses incurred.
