InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 72
Posts 1568
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 05/05/2009

Re: mrholty post# 408

Thursday, 12/05/2013 8:25:18 PM

Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:25:18 PM

Post# of 461

If correct (and I don't know if they are right) then that means that in theory the company and former shareholders should have first rights to the $160M that is seized before the $65M taken by the gov.



Yeah I saw that. The problem is that position is not correct and relies on the same lame argument that was put to rest long ago by the government and the judge...being that forfeiture and restitution are 2 distinct animals. Goldstein is saying pay the investor victims before the government....but the government victim, in any, is the IRS. The 65ish million in forfeiture is not restitution, and he didn't cite any legal precedent nor theory to support his position.

Brooks keeps trying to combine forfeiture and restitution, and/or get credit for forfeiture. The facts on the ground as it currently stands is that the 65ish million in forfeiture is off limits to victims and can not legally and will not be used as restitution. It's something about the forfeiture laws that Brooks keeps ignoring.
Join InvestorsHub

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.