Well, he never did respond to my follow up questio

Well, he never did respond to my follow up question.  This was my response to his response to me:

Gerry,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

I understand the line you have drawn.  I wish you had spent more time discussing whether, in this example, there was a deliberate intent to deceive or whether there may have been a misunderstanding of the applicability of the rules.  The defense presented by the defendants is that the value of the media credits had been sanctioned by the SEC's Florida office and therefore should be valued the same on JBII's books. It seems clear that the rules do not allow that when the amount paid for the asset was not the same as their value, but it is not clear that this was clearly understood by the defendants.

The defense was that the media credits were valued by Domark at the reported value and that the value was sanctioned by the Florida SEC office.  You seem to point this out in your book, but unfortunately I am unable to see the complete quote in the preview that I was given a link to.  It cuts off right before you provide your reasoning:

"The $9,997,134 valuation was not entirely without basis.  It could be traced to a transaction between the original acquirer (who sold them to JBI) and a company called Media4Equity LLC in August 2008.  However, "  - end of preview.

This case has been a major issue for the company and its investors.  Presenting the case in your book when judgement has not been  passed by the SEC leaves open the question of the seriousness of the transgression.  If the SEC ultimately imparts a relatively minor fine won't it change the nature of the story you are conveying?