"Despite....the credibility of Domark’s CEO...Bordynuik directed that the media credits...be listed at the purported face value"
When you took that heavily edited sentence out of its context it sure changed it a lot.
Here's the original:
"Despite having renewed doubts about the source of the media credits, the credibility of Domark’s CEO, and being warned about the proper GAAP treatment of the media credits by JBI’s own consultant and business consultant, Bordynuik directed that the media credits on JBI’s financial statements contained in its Form 10-Q, filed on November 16, 2009, for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, be listed at the purported face value of $9.997 million."
I AM NOT ASLEEP.
The SEC complaint DOES NOT indicate that "the single no-longer-employed SEC investigator opines he should have decided DOMK's CEO had low credibility and not to follow his advice".
The full quote reflects that it is BORDYNUIK'S OWN DOUBTS about the credibility of Domark's CEO, not the SEC's, that should have guided him but did not.
When you pulled the phrase "having renewed doubts about the source of the media credits," out of the original quote you changed the entire meaning of the sentence.
To summarize, you wrote:
"Despite....the credibility of Domark’s CEO...."
The Complaint said:
"Despite having renewed doubts about the source of the media credits, the credibility of Domark’s CEO, and being warned about the proper GAAP treatment of the media credits by JBI’s own consultant and business consultant, Bordynuik directed....."
Perhaps it was just another one of those misunderstandings.
LOL.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
