3 ms·
No, you're absolutely correct. However, the inverse is also true. The SEC only needs to win one case to set precedent for all SAFTs. Given that the SEC is the o
by drawnwren 8y ago
No, you're absolutely correct. However, the inverse is also true. The SEC only needs to win one case to set precedent for all SAFTs. Given that the SEC is the one bringing the cases, it would seem obvious that they would establish sound precedent before going after the murkier cases. I'm not sure I'd want to tie my wagon to anyone who used a SAFT.