not according to the Judge who cited Federal Law to determine he did incur 10.4 million in losses for the investors [1], it's complicated even though he did pay

not according to the Judge who cited Federal Law to determine he did incur 10.4 million in losses for the investors [1], it's complicated even though he did pay the investors back after they became suspicious. My understanding is this, say you leave your ferrari at the valet and the valet driver took it on a joy ride and returns it undamaged, you didn't lose anything, but the valet driver did break the law. 1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-shkreli/pharma-bro-shkreli-to-be-held-responsible-for-10-4-million-in-losses-u-s-judge-idUSKCN1GA2DB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-shkreli/pharma-...