[UrsulaHaun]

I think you're missing the crux of the SEC's case. The fundamental point they are making is that pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, it is unlawful to obtain money by means of any untrue statement.

Par allegedly told investors that their default rate was 1% and they used it in marketing materials, in person presentations and via email according to the complaint. They also had $300M in litigation. For this to be true, mathematically, they would've needed to fund $30 billion. Given the $600M they consistently claimed they funded, 1% is only $6M in defaults. Lets say their factor rate is 1.5, 1% of $900M is only $9M in defaults. The SEC's case seems pretty rock solid.

Par's attorneys told the judge that Par's default rate on a "cash-on-cash" basis was indeed 1.2%. This is going to be one heck of a show. If the basis for the lawsuit and asset freeze was the alleged misrepresentation of the default rate and that turns out to be the actual default rate, (under that methodology anyway), then....