Because it's pretty hard to imagine the CFTC would not have communicated with the NY AG if they had the info about Tether's insolvency. Also hard to imagine NY AG not contacting CFTC before filing.
> (Also, the CFTC and US DoJ investigations were still active at least as recently as November of 2018, which doesn't sound like they found that things were A-OK, more like they were—and presumably still are—trying to nail down the details and responsibility/liability issues surrounding identified irregularities.)
Again, with regard to insolvency, it's pretty hard to imagine CFTC would allow Tether to continue operations for more than a year if they had evidence of insolvency.
It's also pretty hard to imagine that, in filing their own case, the NY AG would reveal sensitive information about a still-active federal investigation, but that's your apparent theory.
> it's pretty hard to imagine CFTC would allow Tether to continue operations for more than a year if they had evidence of insolvency.
It's pretty easy to imagine that of taking action would in any endanger the ongoing DoJ criminal investigation that it would hold back; it's worth noting that the ongoing law enforcement investigation exemption was among the exemptions CFTC cited in June of last year in declining to provide documents in response to an FOIA request about the Tether-related subpoena.