These are matters of opinion and I don't think tha

These are matters of opinion and I don't think that I could give you a definitive proof in the form of research to prove what I am saying. It is just common sense and my experience. I am not a lawyer. I think what you are talking about is criminal law, where someone cannto be tried for the same crime twice. Innocent means innocent unless there is new evidence, etc.

All of this is IMO, but I think civil law is a bit different. The purpose is to right a wrong. One must prove damages and basically make their case. If someone commits an act of fraud in the stock market, of course it is going to affect alot of people. There can be many claimants who can say that they have been wronged and seek damages. I am not exactly sure who the SEC represents, but they are just one claimant. The shareholders are of course other claimants who can prove damages and make their case on exactly the same basic offense. Personally, I am surprised that the SEC case was not in a criminal court. The Nortel executives were tried in a criminal court and were facing prison terms potentially. Seems to be a similar thing, matters of accounting.

Anyway, I should have said...
"the fact that a settlement was made and money changed hands will be interpreted as some fraud or at the very least an accounting misstatement occurred".

IMO