3 ms·
We can split hairs all day regarding exactly who brings charges or whatever - but it doesn't matter. In basic terms: If the SEC says you are liable or guilty i
by Alupis 4y ago
We can split hairs all day regarding exactly who brings charges or whatever - but it doesn't matter. In basic terms:
If the SEC says you are liable or guilty in any way for anything, you can contest it via the legal system. That's what the legal system is for...
Again, this "non admission of guilt" sidesteps everything and cuts straight to the end result.
In this specific case, it literally means the SEC either felt their case wasn't strong enough to guarantee an outcome, or litigating the case would become exceedingly costly and unproductive - again without a guarantee of an outcome.
"Non admission of guilt" payments guarantee a speedy outcome. That is the entire point.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> Again, this “non admission of guilt” sidesteps everything and cuts straight to the end result. It’s a settlement agreement, and, yes, that’s the whole point – they resolve a situation subject to civil litigation without litigation, but leaving the settling party no worse off than if they had fought and had the agreement contents instead imposed as a remedy. Requiring admissions as part of a settlement would not do that, settling would then in many cases be worse than losing.
- Alupis 4y agoWe're saying the same thing, even if you write it more elegantly than I.
- dragonwriter 4y agoYeah, sorry I kind of snapshotted the last one and thought you were taking issue with the short-circuiting rather than merely describing it.