Replies to post #12341 on ParaFin Corporation (PFNO)

[Yaakov]

But settlement discussions have already commenced....with or without admission of liability (which has already happened), it seems that a settlement is on the way to me.

[Grifter]

I think you keep missing my point: ING is naughty and a lair – proven by being prosecuted and fined.

For years ING “said, said” to federal regulators and investors they were doing right and conducting business properly. Now we know they weren’t. Nothing of the sort has been proven against PFNO. Again, logically, I give the point to PFNO in PFNO vs. ING.

But I will play devil’s advocate, which I wish you could do once. Let’s just take your argument and say the bonds are fake. The bonds are no good at all.

To me, worst-case scenario is that ING settles with PFNO – not for billions but for whatever. You see, PFNO and RDG are not giving up, and ING looks bad as it is. ING wants their bad image to go away, so it’s easier to payoff than to take on more court battles – you should at least acknowledge that. Even if ING is right, it’ll be less costly for them just to cough up a settlement with PFNO. They won’t have to pay lawyers and risk losing more … given their image isn’t so shiny now.

ING will be changing its name to Voya Financial by 2014. They just want this all to go away. PFNO will get something, IMO.