The decision whether to resolve and settle an SEC investigation or go to
court and fight it out depends on the facts. It depends upon economic
resources and it depends in many instances on what the client wants to do. Not necessarily from a legal standpoint, but from a life standpoint.
So there are times where a case is defensible, but a client understandably
may just want to get it resolved and put it past him. And that’s perfectly acceptable and makes sense. The notion
of fighting the government is formidable. It has vast resources.
Uh every SEC case brought is made public and so your name is going to be out there if they sue you whether you win or
you lose. At the end of the day, the damage has been done when they file the case. The truth is the victories are
typically during the investigatory period. My job as SEC investigation
defense council is to ensure that my client is never the subject of a headline and that nobody ever knows that
the investigation ever occurred. If however the SEC is adamant that it
intends to charge, if the facts are such that it makes sense to get the case resolved because it will not go better
in court and settlement terms are more advantageous than what we believe we can get in court. All things being equal, it makes sense to attempt to resolve it.
There are however situations where the SEC is overly aggressive and is offering
settlement terms that match our worst day in court. And in that case, the
situation, that scenario, the decision to litigate is much more straightforward and easily answered because there is very little to lose by litigation.