Does the failure of the District Attorney to obtain restitution for the majority of investors for whom restitution had been sought in the original complaint justify intervening on behalf of the class?

First, Good argues that the failure of the district attorney to obtain restitution for the majority of investors for whom restitution had been sought in the original complaint, furnishes sufficient justification for his intervention on behalf of the class. We disagree. While the district attorney may seek restitution in such an action (People v. Superior Court (Jayhill); 9 Cal.3d 283, 286, 107 Cal.Rptr. 192, 507 P.2d 1400), he is not compelled to secure all the relief he has sought. ³ Many reasons can exist why a district attorney may not insist on restitution as part of a particular settlement. It may be difficult to determine the identity of the victims and the amount owed to each; reliance by the victims on false and misleading statements may not be provable; defendants may have specific and separate defenses to the claims of particular victims; settlement may not be feasible if restitution is required; the public interest may be better served by allowing the issue of restitution to be settled in an action between the parties themselves. At bench, the record contains assertions by the district attorney that many investors in the oil drilling contracts knew the purported tax deductions were improper, knowledge which, if true, could affect their right to restitution.