I don't know if those firms still have any or not. Since their plan to divert any litigation proceeds to their coffers went down the toilet, I doubt they have as much incentive to stay around.
I guess Mr Brooks doesn't have anything else to do but continue to get duped by his lawyers...I thought he was smarter than that. With all the drivel they've filed in all the courts, they must have convinced their client he will somehow miraculously avoid any restitution relying on an Alan Dershowitz hail mary. Good luck with that. Even if he doesn't lose every bit of the seized funds via the criminal avenue, the civil side of this amounts to a second bite of the apple which will undoubtedly take what remains and then some.
So in the meantime, I guess we'll have to sit here and watch David Brooks throw another 10-20 million down the drain in legal fees to reach the same inevitable outcome.
If he was as intelligent as I thought he was, he'd cut a deal with his ex to get the GS done. IMO, the tea leaves point to the government not agreeing with his ex over the claims she's filed against the seized assets.
Even if the criminal conviction was throw out, he will still have to give back any equity based compensation from his insider trading in the civil action. That alone would put his minimum out of pocket somewhere in the range of 170ish million, whilst the maximum range of liability via restitution and forfeiture is in the range of 270ish million.
I would note that the civil side has a cap, whilst the criminal side doesn't. This is something his lawyers never acknowledge in their filings. I believe the general consensus, taking into consideration the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, is that if all the seized assets are distributed as restitution and forfeiture, then the civil liability is moot.
All IMO and based upon the public record...and a large Pacer bill.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
