I said I believe the case was dismissed after an out-of-court settlement was reached.
Do you understand what that means?
It does not infer that all defendants were innocent of the allegations against them.
It often means the defendants felt they were unlikely to win at trial, so it was in their best interest to cut a deal to avoid having to pay potentially sizable punitive damages, as well as having a potentially career-ending judgment entered against them.
As I've said before, I absolutely do not believe that two unassociated companies conspired to shake down Steve-o, Harrington and the others by filing bogus fraud claims - this isn't a Hollywood drama.
The amounts of the reported losses were identical in both cases and laughably small considering Harrington's wealth if they were simply out to procure a settlement from a rich celebrity.
I certainly don't believe both companies walked away from the 60k they lost, plus legal expenses.
I also don't believe it's a coincidence that AIC shut down around the same time the case closed; I believe that was part of the settlement so that it could no longer be used to perpetuate fraud. I also believe that Harrington (who owned 5% of AIC shares) refused to be continue being an advisor to a corrupt company.
Perhaps the settlement is public record that someone doing thorough DD (and not merely sticking their head in the sand) would seek to obtain.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
