I got to give any shorts in this stock credit for riding out that jump from $11 and change to $18. that is a +50% move. I reckon the shorts had such a big profit in the stock that many didn't really feel concerned about giving some of it back. Now shares are back to $12-13 range in a week on that SEC request for info announcement. The SEC could have asked for info about this stuff anytime in the past 5 years. Nothing knew to be discovered here. It is not like the shorts were not expecting ESI to take some student loan writedowns - this has been one of their key points in shorting the stock as far as I can see. So, after the short's forecast come through, they then call up the SEC and scream about the very writedowns that they were expecting and about ESI kitchen sinking the q4 2012. I can imagine the phone call from the shorts sellers to the SEC. The shorts get they writedown they were looking for, which knocks the stock down, giving guys like me the chance to buy the washout shares on the cheap. Then the shorts go complain to the SEC about the very writedowns that helped make them money. It is too funny. You would think that if ESI did not take the writedowns that the shorts would scream to the SEC. In the Lehman and Bear Stearns bankruptcies, the companies hid the losses from their awful mortgage CDO's on held their own books by means of their own accounting. ESI does not own any student loans, They only had issued guarantees on parts of the loans that were issued by third part banks and financial institutions. And these loans were not serviced by ESI. ESI never collected any interest income from these loans. Claims regarding the guarantees are submitted to ESI by the lenders. In the 2007 RSA, ESI reserved for these as they were presented. The claims for the guarantees from the 2007 RSA were all spelled out clearly as far as I read in my examination of the SEC filings.
One thing is for sure "deathrace" you are consistent with your wording that implies nothing at all. Pure conjecture with no foundation to support what you state. All fluff and no stuff. Ususally before majoy law firms make a case against a company they do their due dilligence to be sure they have a foundation to make a claim as they did. But of course you are in denial, so what else can you say that you haven't stated already. I hope the best for ITT, but not with the current management. They need to be ousted and probably will be very soon.