1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,760
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:12,880
Speaker 2: More than two years ago, members of Purdue Pharma's Sackler family,

3
00:00:13,119 --> 00:00:16,480
Speaker 2: who earned billions of dollars from the sale of oxyconton

4
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:20,560
Speaker 2: and other opioids, were questioned in Congress about their company's

5
00:00:20,680 --> 00:00:24,840
Speaker 2: role in the deadly opioid epidemic. David and Kathy Sackler

6
00:00:24,960 --> 00:00:29,360
Speaker 2: expressed regret over the crisis, but did not admit any wrongdoing.

7
00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:33,159
Speaker 3: I want to express my family's deep sadness about the

8
00:00:33,200 --> 00:00:37,920
Speaker 3: opioid crisis. Oxyconton has a medicine that Purdue intended to

9
00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:38,640
Speaker 3: help people.

10
00:00:40,360 --> 00:00:43,240
Speaker 2: I know the loss of any family member or loved

11
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:48,479
Speaker 2: one is terribly painful, and nothing is more tragic than

12
00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:51,479
Speaker 2: the loss of a child. And now the Second Circuit

13
00:00:51,520 --> 00:00:55,240
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals has found that the billionaire Sacklers can

14
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 2: be shielded against future opioid lawsuits as part of the

15
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 2: company's bankruptcy, even though they did not file for bankruptcy themselves.

16
00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:06,440
Speaker 2: This clears the way for a settlement of thousands of

17
00:01:06,520 --> 00:01:10,160
Speaker 2: legal claims, where the Sacklers will pay six billion dollars,

18
00:01:10,560 --> 00:01:14,480
Speaker 2: about half of their fortune, and give up ownership of Purdue,

19
00:01:15,000 --> 00:01:18,240
Speaker 2: joining me is John Coffee, a professor Columbia Law School

20
00:01:18,680 --> 00:01:21,959
Speaker 2: and a business law expert. Jack tell us about the

21
00:01:22,040 --> 00:01:25,240
Speaker 2: Second Circuit decision and some of the background.

22
00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:29,480
Speaker 1: What you should understand is, in the traditional bankruptcy case,

23
00:01:30,000 --> 00:01:34,039
Speaker 1: under something called Chapter eleven, only the claims of the

24
00:01:34,120 --> 00:01:37,880
Speaker 1: bankrupt debtor are resolved. No one else gets a release.

25
00:01:38,280 --> 00:01:41,440
Speaker 1: This is a case evolving a release to a third party,

26
00:01:41,840 --> 00:01:46,280
Speaker 1: the Sackler family. That did not normally happen in bankruptcy,

27
00:01:46,480 --> 00:01:49,400
Speaker 1: but there has been a very new trend. There is

28
00:01:49,480 --> 00:01:52,280
Speaker 1: a case involving the Boy Scouts that releases were given

29
00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:54,320
Speaker 1: to all the Boy Scout leaders as well as to

30
00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,400
Speaker 1: the Boy Scout entity which is bankrupt. The Boy Scouts

31
00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:03,200
Speaker 1: were also overwhelmed by thousands of involving sexual misconduct. Exceptions

32
00:02:03,240 --> 00:02:05,919
Speaker 1: have occurred, but they were pretty rare. Now, what happened

33
00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:09,520
Speaker 1: in this case is the bankruptcy judge, looking at an

34
00:02:09,720 --> 00:02:15,080
Speaker 1: unending lifetime of litigation with Purdue Pharma and its oxycotton climbs,

35
00:02:15,760 --> 00:02:19,040
Speaker 1: did approve a settlement that gave a release to all

36
00:02:19,160 --> 00:02:22,800
Speaker 1: the Sacklers. The district court then reversed him and said

37
00:02:22,880 --> 00:02:26,880
Speaker 1: there was no support under the bankruptcy laws for giving

38
00:02:26,919 --> 00:02:30,919
Speaker 1: this kind of release, all right, The second Circuit heard

39
00:02:30,960 --> 00:02:34,200
Speaker 1: the appeal, and now things get a little strange. The

40
00:02:34,240 --> 00:02:37,720
Speaker 1: Second Circuit sat on this for over a year after

41
00:02:37,760 --> 00:02:39,800
Speaker 1: it was argued in the Second Circuit, but usually be

42
00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:42,000
Speaker 1: out with the case in a couple of months. So

43
00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:45,280
Speaker 1: they obviously hit some difficulties with it. And there is

44
00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:49,120
Speaker 1: a concurring descending opinion that says this case is very

45
00:02:49,160 --> 00:02:53,200
Speaker 1: unusual and we shouldn't do this again. Unfortunately, it's very

46
00:02:53,320 --> 00:02:56,120
Speaker 1: likely that they will do it again, because everyone plans.

47
00:02:56,120 --> 00:02:59,040
Speaker 1: Some people who plan bankruptcies are now going to plan

48
00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:03,520
Speaker 1: to have a major contribution by the controlling shareholders and

49
00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:06,600
Speaker 1: give them third party releases. You see, in this kind

50
00:03:06,600 --> 00:03:10,399
Speaker 1: of case, you could sue not only the corporation Perdue Pharma,

51
00:03:10,520 --> 00:03:13,359
Speaker 1: but the Sackler family, which had made all the decisions

52
00:03:13,400 --> 00:03:17,120
Speaker 1: about how to market and sell oxy cotton effectively to

53
00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:19,600
Speaker 1: the masses and not just to a very limited audience.

54
00:03:20,280 --> 00:03:23,359
Speaker 1: So we have a problem with whether or not third

55
00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:27,440
Speaker 1: party releases will become common bankruptcies because the debtor and

56
00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:30,320
Speaker 1: its lawyers can plan these things in advance and will

57
00:03:30,360 --> 00:03:32,120
Speaker 1: try to maximize their releases.

58
00:03:32,520 --> 00:03:34,880
Speaker 2: Are courts too eager to get a settlement in a

59
00:03:34,920 --> 00:03:36,120
Speaker 2: bankruptcy proceeding.

60
00:03:36,520 --> 00:03:39,880
Speaker 1: Bankruptcy courts and bankruptcy law are having a particular problem

61
00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:44,400
Speaker 1: with mass torts. Purdue Pharma was oxy cotton. There's another

62
00:03:44,560 --> 00:03:46,680
Speaker 1: case it's in the courts a lot, getting a lot

63
00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 1: of attention, which is Johnson and Johnson and its problem

64
00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:53,240
Speaker 1: with talcum powder. Billions of dollars of claims have been

65
00:03:53,320 --> 00:03:56,360
Speaker 1: raised on the grounds the talcum powder causes women to

66
00:03:56,400 --> 00:04:00,960
Speaker 1: get a variety of cancers. And that district court approved

67
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:04,839
Speaker 1: such a settlement allowing Johnson and Johnson to take all

68
00:04:04,880 --> 00:04:08,120
Speaker 1: of their liabilities and all their subsidiaries, put it in

69
00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:11,880
Speaker 1: one subsidiary only, and then immediately put that subsidiary into bankruptcy.

70
00:04:12,040 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 1: District court allowed, that bankruptcy court allowed there, but the

71
00:04:14,680 --> 00:04:18,440
Speaker 1: Second Circuit has reversed it, and Don Johnson and Johnson

72
00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:21,440
Speaker 1: is suggesting they may go to the Supreme Court. I'm

73
00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:25,279
Speaker 1: just saying there's a general pattern here of bankruptcy courts

74
00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:27,839
Speaker 1: being very interested in getting a settlement because they don't

75
00:04:27,880 --> 00:04:30,039
Speaker 1: want to spend a lifetime on one case. And what

76
00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:33,400
Speaker 1: made the Sackler case so attractive to the bankruptcy court

77
00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:36,640
Speaker 1: and ultimately to the Second Circuit is that the Sackler

78
00:04:36,720 --> 00:04:40,680
Speaker 1: family ultimately sweetened the settlement by adding six billion of

79
00:04:40,720 --> 00:04:42,200
Speaker 1: their own money. Now, I have to tell you that

80
00:04:42,279 --> 00:04:44,640
Speaker 1: six billion of their own money was money they took

81
00:04:44,720 --> 00:04:47,200
Speaker 1: out of Purdue Farmer in the last days. For the

82
00:04:47,320 --> 00:04:51,040
Speaker 1: last ten years, Perdue Farmer was run basically recognizing that

83
00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:53,200
Speaker 1: it was going to fail, and the Sacklers try to

84
00:04:53,200 --> 00:04:54,880
Speaker 1: take all the money they could out of it. But

85
00:04:55,279 --> 00:04:59,000
Speaker 1: adding six billion to the pool was a tremendous difference,

86
00:04:59,279 --> 00:05:03,200
Speaker 1: and I think that had seduced the courts into accepting

87
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:07,480
Speaker 1: an unusual provision, which, if it's generalized, is going to

88
00:05:07,800 --> 00:05:11,640
Speaker 1: work to the disadvantage of the creditors the claimants under

89
00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:12,360
Speaker 1: the long term.

90
00:05:12,720 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 2: I just want to clarify this. The family demanded they

91
00:05:16,240 --> 00:05:19,480
Speaker 2: get full immunity from all civil legal claims before they

92
00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:23,240
Speaker 2: would settle, even though Perdue had filed for bankruptcy and

93
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:25,640
Speaker 2: the Sacklers as individuals had not.

94
00:05:26,480 --> 00:05:29,280
Speaker 1: That's exactly what is unusual. That is, if you want

95
00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:31,760
Speaker 1: to go into bankruptcy, all your athts are going to

96
00:05:31,760 --> 00:05:35,240
Speaker 1: go into the pool. And if you don't go too bankruptcy,

97
00:05:35,520 --> 00:05:39,839
Speaker 1: you can make a contribution and say this contribution is

98
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:43,240
Speaker 1: contingent upon the court giving us a release. The difference

99
00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:45,920
Speaker 1: between mollmost one hundred percent of your assets being in

100
00:05:45,920 --> 00:05:49,640
Speaker 1: the bankruptcy pool and a settlement under which maybe a

101
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:52,480
Speaker 1: thirty year assets are the six billion does not leave

102
00:05:52,520 --> 00:05:53,400
Speaker 1: the Sackler's poor.

103
00:05:53,839 --> 00:05:57,520
Speaker 2: Six billion. That's just a little over half of their wealth.

104
00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:00,479
Speaker 1: So it is nice to have happy. You know, the

105
00:06:00,520 --> 00:06:02,560
Speaker 1: first three billion that you own are the most important.

106
00:06:02,720 --> 00:06:07,160
Speaker 2: So they haven't admitted their role in fueling the opioid crisis,

107
00:06:07,640 --> 00:06:10,880
Speaker 2: and this just gives them a pass. So what's the sigmal?

108
00:06:11,800 --> 00:06:14,360
Speaker 1: I mean, look at it this way. The claimants for

109
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 1: getting nothing because Perdue Farmer didn't have much left. They

110
00:06:18,320 --> 00:06:20,720
Speaker 1: didn't file for bankruptcy too. They were down to their

111
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:23,640
Speaker 1: last stages because they've been sued and suited and sued.

112
00:06:24,120 --> 00:06:27,320
Speaker 1: I think that the argument that E actually moved the

113
00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:30,679
Speaker 1: second Circuit judges, or moved two of them, was that

114
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:34,039
Speaker 1: this settlement is never going to be resolved and the

115
00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:36,360
Speaker 1: claimants are not going to live forever, and we want

116
00:06:36,400 --> 00:06:39,320
Speaker 1: to get money to people during their lifetimes. And six billion,

117
00:06:39,480 --> 00:06:41,320
Speaker 1: that's a lot more money that was in the pool.

118
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:44,480
Speaker 1: That's a multiple of the assets that Purdue Pharmer had

119
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:47,719
Speaker 1: left but we did leave the Sacklers very well off,

120
00:06:48,000 --> 00:06:50,880
Speaker 1: just like yesterday's legislation. Neither side is happy.

121
00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:53,719
Speaker 2: Can this decision be appealed to the Supreme Court?

122
00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:56,000
Speaker 1: It can, but it probably won't be. What you have

123
00:06:56,120 --> 00:06:59,359
Speaker 1: to realize is that most of the claimants went along

124
00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:02,280
Speaker 1: with this. The waited so long. They were very happy

125
00:07:02,400 --> 00:07:05,159
Speaker 1: to get a six billion contribution that gave them something.

126
00:07:05,360 --> 00:07:08,440
Speaker 1: The only claimants that are really left are the Canadian claimants.

127
00:07:08,800 --> 00:07:11,960
Speaker 1: The betting is and I've seen this in several sources

128
00:07:12,280 --> 00:07:14,920
Speaker 1: that they probably won't appeal, but they might they could.

129
00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:20,600
Speaker 2: This doesn't protect the family members from any potential criminal charges, no, but.

130
00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:23,520
Speaker 1: The statue of limitations probably does. You've got to realize

131
00:07:23,520 --> 00:07:26,160
Speaker 1: that the high point of all this is the nineteen nineties.

132
00:07:26,280 --> 00:07:28,760
Speaker 1: Oxyconton took over the country and became the drug of

133
00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:32,880
Speaker 1: choice back in the nineteen nineties, and Flocks has been

134
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:35,440
Speaker 1: replaced by much more powerful things like Bethanel.

135
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:38,480
Speaker 2: I mean, this sounds like a good deal for the Sacklers.

136
00:07:38,720 --> 00:07:41,320
Speaker 1: Oh yes, well, they made this good deal and they

137
00:07:41,320 --> 00:07:44,840
Speaker 1: made a contention on the court approving And I got

138
00:07:44,880 --> 00:07:47,840
Speaker 1: to tell you that the bankruptcy court itself see is

139
00:07:47,880 --> 00:07:51,280
Speaker 1: a lifetime a career just hearing these claims, wants to

140
00:07:51,360 --> 00:07:54,400
Speaker 1: escape that and sees no money going to the claimants

141
00:07:54,400 --> 00:07:56,800
Speaker 1: who are running the court and complaining and screaming they

142
00:07:56,880 --> 00:08:01,160
Speaker 1: need money to survive. And six billion certainly made a difference,

143
00:08:01,600 --> 00:08:04,720
Speaker 1: But it does mean that bankruptcy law changes, and I'm

144
00:08:04,760 --> 00:08:06,920
Speaker 1: afraid we're going to see a lot more of these

145
00:08:06,960 --> 00:08:09,920
Speaker 1: settlements because now any bankruptcy in New York will be

146
00:08:09,960 --> 00:08:12,920
Speaker 1: governed by this. And there's a similar decision in the

147
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:15,720
Speaker 1: Third Circuit. So I think in the Northeast you're going

148
00:08:15,760 --> 00:08:19,800
Speaker 1: to see a lot of third party claimants not filing

149
00:08:19,840 --> 00:08:23,760
Speaker 1: for bankruptcy, not subjecting all their assets to the bankruptcy court,

150
00:08:23,920 --> 00:08:27,280
Speaker 1: but making some kind of offer. There might be negotiations,

151
00:08:27,480 --> 00:08:29,360
Speaker 1: but some kind of offer that if we put in

152
00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:32,079
Speaker 1: this much money, we will get a release for all

153
00:08:32,160 --> 00:08:34,880
Speaker 1: civil liability. You don't get a release, as you quite

154
00:08:34,920 --> 00:08:38,240
Speaker 1: properly say, from criminal liability. But the statue of limitations

155
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:41,319
Speaker 1: is now long wrong run on most of this.

156
00:08:41,920 --> 00:08:44,400
Speaker 2: As part of the settlement, they're going to give up

157
00:08:44,679 --> 00:08:45,960
Speaker 2: ownership of the company.

158
00:08:46,400 --> 00:08:49,480
Speaker 1: The company is being turned into a not for profit,

159
00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:51,920
Speaker 1: and the company was bankrupt, there was no great value

160
00:08:52,200 --> 00:08:56,840
Speaker 1: all it's going to do is produce addiction preventing drugs

161
00:08:57,160 --> 00:09:00,640
Speaker 1: and other drugs that will be sold on a cost bases.

162
00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:03,000
Speaker 1: They're not going to try to make any profit, and

163
00:09:03,080 --> 00:09:06,080
Speaker 1: all the money made by Perdue Pharma, which has a

164
00:09:06,080 --> 00:09:09,080
Speaker 1: new name now, will be given to charity if Secklers

165
00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:12,160
Speaker 1: will no longer own Perdue Pharma. But of course Perdue

166
00:09:12,200 --> 00:09:14,640
Speaker 1: Farmer was failing. You don't want to own something that's

167
00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:16,080
Speaker 1: losing money in bankruptcy.

168
00:09:16,600 --> 00:09:19,600
Speaker 2: So what struck me as kind of funny is that

169
00:09:19,679 --> 00:09:21,920
Speaker 2: the family is going to allow their name to be

170
00:09:21,960 --> 00:09:24,480
Speaker 2: removed from buildings and scholarships.

171
00:09:24,559 --> 00:09:27,680
Speaker 1: But that's already happened. I'm a Columbia. Columbia took the

172
00:09:27,679 --> 00:09:29,480
Speaker 1: Sacklers off many years ago.

173
00:09:29,520 --> 00:09:32,480
Speaker 2: But their name can't be disparaged. While that's happening. It

174
00:09:32,520 --> 00:09:35,439
Speaker 2: seems like they just got every which way whatever they want.

175
00:09:35,840 --> 00:09:40,280
Speaker 1: They got a lot. Now now disparagement, Well that's not unusual.

176
00:09:40,520 --> 00:09:43,559
Speaker 1: I think what that means is the university is taking

177
00:09:43,600 --> 00:09:46,360
Speaker 1: the name off. Can't say anything negative. They just say

178
00:09:46,400 --> 00:09:48,400
Speaker 1: we are removing the name and it will now be

179
00:09:48,520 --> 00:09:52,400
Speaker 1: known as the Anthropology Hall wherever it's called the Sackler

180
00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:53,240
Speaker 1: Anthropology Hall.

181
00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:55,200
Speaker 2: So now what's the next step.

182
00:09:55,480 --> 00:09:58,600
Speaker 1: Well, there could be an appeal. Few people think that

183
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:01,800
Speaker 1: there will be appeals, And if there are appeals, it's

184
00:10:01,800 --> 00:10:03,840
Speaker 1: not at all clear the Supreme Court will take it.

185
00:10:04,160 --> 00:10:06,760
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court may not appeared in de ciding a

186
00:10:06,800 --> 00:10:09,760
Speaker 1: bankruptcy lay issue. Remember, the Supreme Court only takes about

187
00:10:09,760 --> 00:10:13,080
Speaker 1: five or six percent of the sotuary appeals brought to her.

188
00:10:13,200 --> 00:10:16,040
Speaker 1: And if they don't get sociary, the case is now final.

189
00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:19,000
Speaker 1: If they do get sotuary, I can't tell you what

190
00:10:19,040 --> 00:10:22,600
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court would do. I think it is less

191
00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:25,120
Speaker 1: than likely that the Supreme Court will take the case.

192
00:10:25,840 --> 00:10:28,360
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for being on the show. That's Professor

193
00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:30,440
Speaker 2: John Coffee of Columbia Law School.

194
00:10:31,520 --> 00:10:34,200
Speaker 1: There been one hundred and twenty twenty three days to

195
00:10:34,240 --> 00:10:36,160
Speaker 1: president non voting three absent.

196
00:10:36,960 --> 00:10:41,400
Speaker 2: The resolution is adopted and with that, Texas Attorney General

197
00:10:41,520 --> 00:10:45,760
Speaker 2: Ken Paxton, a champion of far right GOP legal fights

198
00:10:45,800 --> 00:10:50,720
Speaker 2: over guns, abortion, and immigration, was impeached in an extraordinary

199
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:55,280
Speaker 2: vote by the state's Republican dominated House of Representatives, which

200
00:10:55,400 --> 00:10:59,960
Speaker 2: charge him with bribery, obstruction of justice, and eighteen other offenses.

201
00:11:00,120 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 2: Is Paxton lashed out at the impeachment proceedings.

202
00:11:04,679 --> 00:11:10,120
Speaker 3: Every politician who supports this deceitful impeachment attempt will then

203
00:11:10,320 --> 00:11:14,600
Speaker 3: flict lasting damage on the credibility of the Texas House

204
00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:15,400
Speaker 3: which I served in.

205
00:11:15,880 --> 00:11:18,959
Speaker 2: The proceedings are historic. There have been only two other

206
00:11:19,080 --> 00:11:22,960
Speaker 2: impeachments in Texas has nearly two hundred year history, and

207
00:11:23,080 --> 00:11:26,360
Speaker 2: now the political showdown is headed to the state Senate.

208
00:11:26,640 --> 00:11:31,319
Speaker 2: Joining me, as Madeline Meckelberg Bloomberg Texas Legal reporter, start

209
00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:37,880
Speaker 2: by telling us about Ken Paxton as a conservative agitator,

210
00:11:37,880 --> 00:11:42,199
Speaker 2: an election denier, bringing so many lawsuits against the Biden

211
00:11:42,400 --> 00:11:44,240
Speaker 2: and Obama administrations.

212
00:11:45,360 --> 00:11:48,559
Speaker 4: You hit on all of the headlines there for Paxton.

213
00:11:49,000 --> 00:11:53,520
Speaker 4: Paxton is a long time Republican elected official in Texas.

214
00:11:53,600 --> 00:11:57,079
Speaker 4: He's held office here for the past twenty years, most

215
00:11:57,080 --> 00:12:00,640
Speaker 4: recently at Attorney General, and in that role he really

216
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:04,679
Speaker 4: has cultivated this national reputation of being a leading voice

217
00:12:04,720 --> 00:12:09,120
Speaker 4: on these hot button GOP political issues that includes abortion,

218
00:12:09,480 --> 00:12:13,400
Speaker 4: gun rights, immigration, the border is a big focus for him.

219
00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:17,200
Speaker 4: And then he really became a key ally of former

220
00:12:17,240 --> 00:12:20,640
Speaker 4: President Donald Trump. And you mentioned it already. He was

221
00:12:20,679 --> 00:12:23,960
Speaker 4: a leading voice when it came to denying the legitimacy

222
00:12:24,120 --> 00:12:28,719
Speaker 4: of the twenty twenty presidential election, he launched an unsuccessful

223
00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:31,920
Speaker 4: case before the US Supreme Court seeking to overturn those

224
00:12:31,960 --> 00:12:35,559
Speaker 4: election results. And he has just stayed in that lane,

225
00:12:35,679 --> 00:12:39,679
Speaker 4: known for being a conservative firebrand on every issue, and

226
00:12:40,280 --> 00:12:43,920
Speaker 4: really built his career as Attorney General on doing the

227
00:12:43,960 --> 00:12:47,640
Speaker 4: Obama administration and now doing the Biden administration.

228
00:12:48,280 --> 00:12:54,440
Speaker 2: Have allegations of criminal and ethical misconduct followed him through

229
00:12:54,880 --> 00:12:59,680
Speaker 2: his tenure as Attorney general, so since twenty fourteen, yes

230
00:12:59,800 --> 00:13:00,240
Speaker 2: they have.

231
00:13:00,920 --> 00:13:03,559
Speaker 4: He was elected to AG in twenty fourteen, as you said,

232
00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:06,520
Speaker 4: and then just a few months later he was actually

233
00:13:06,559 --> 00:13:11,080
Speaker 4: indicted on security spread charges. He was accused of persuading

234
00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:14,439
Speaker 4: investors to buy stock in this tech firm without disclosing

235
00:13:14,520 --> 00:13:18,120
Speaker 4: that he would be compensated for that. And ever since

236
00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:22,040
Speaker 4: then the allegations against him have grown in their scope

237
00:13:22,120 --> 00:13:25,120
Speaker 4: and they've really now shifted to be about his conduct

238
00:13:25,160 --> 00:13:28,719
Speaker 4: while in office. But ever since then, he has been

239
00:13:28,720 --> 00:13:34,800
Speaker 4: hounded by these different allegations, including bribery, including abusive office

240
00:13:35,080 --> 00:13:38,360
Speaker 4: and the like, and he's been under investigation by federal

241
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:43,120
Speaker 4: authorities which is ongoing. He's part of multiple lawsuits around

242
00:13:43,160 --> 00:13:47,080
Speaker 4: this wrongdoing allegedly and the criminal case against him connected

243
00:13:47,080 --> 00:13:50,760
Speaker 4: to that initial indictment is still ongoing. It's yet to

244
00:13:50,800 --> 00:13:51,440
Speaker 4: be resolved.

245
00:13:51,800 --> 00:13:55,079
Speaker 2: So you just went through the litany of problems he's had.

246
00:13:55,320 --> 00:13:59,320
Speaker 2: What happened to lead to this impeachment? After all the

247
00:13:59,600 --> 00:14:02,640
Speaker 2: other inquiries, after all the stuff that's out there, he

248
00:14:02,720 --> 00:14:05,239
Speaker 2: was still reelected. What led to this impeachment?

249
00:14:06,040 --> 00:14:09,479
Speaker 4: That is the million dollar question right now in Texas.

250
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:12,040
Speaker 4: I mean to say the news this week was shocking

251
00:14:12,280 --> 00:14:16,360
Speaker 4: is an understatement considering how much Paxton has weathered as

252
00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:19,600
Speaker 4: Attorney general. As you said, he was just re elected

253
00:14:19,640 --> 00:14:22,600
Speaker 4: to his third term in office, and these allegations have

254
00:14:22,720 --> 00:14:25,680
Speaker 4: been out in the open in the public. I can

255
00:14:25,720 --> 00:14:28,360
Speaker 4: take you back to the saga of this week, how

256
00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:32,000
Speaker 4: this impeachment unfolded over the span of just a few days,

257
00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:35,240
Speaker 4: and it started with Paxton coming out and issuing this

258
00:14:35,320 --> 00:14:40,120
Speaker 4: statement calling on House Speaker Dave Feelin to resign because

259
00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:42,640
Speaker 4: there was a video circulating of him on the internet

260
00:14:42,840 --> 00:14:46,200
Speaker 4: that people were speculating he appeared to be intoxicated while

261
00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:50,160
Speaker 4: presiding over the Texas House this week, and Paxton called

262
00:14:50,240 --> 00:14:53,840
Speaker 4: on a House Ethics committee to hold an investigation into

263
00:14:53,880 --> 00:14:58,080
Speaker 4: Feln's office. Later that day, that House Investigative Committee scheduled

264
00:14:58,080 --> 00:15:01,160
Speaker 4: a meeting, but the meeting was actually about them revealing

265
00:15:01,240 --> 00:15:04,880
Speaker 4: that they had been conducting a secret, month long investigation

266
00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:08,600
Speaker 4: into Paxton's conduct while in office, and they say that

267
00:15:08,680 --> 00:15:13,000
Speaker 4: this investigation was prompted by an ongoing whistle blower lawsuit

268
00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:17,160
Speaker 4: against Paxton that was brought by three high ranking officials

269
00:15:17,200 --> 00:15:21,000
Speaker 4: in his office who say they were terminated after reporting

270
00:15:21,120 --> 00:15:25,880
Speaker 4: Paxton's two federal authorities for bribery. Paxton reached a settlement

271
00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:30,440
Speaker 4: agreement with those whistleblowers that totaled three point three million dollars,

272
00:15:30,640 --> 00:15:33,480
Speaker 4: but since Paxton is a public official, that money had

273
00:15:33,520 --> 00:15:36,320
Speaker 4: to be taxpayer dollars and it had to be approved

274
00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:40,840
Speaker 4: by state lawmakers in the budget. Lawmakers rejected that request,

275
00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:44,160
Speaker 4: but they say that him asking for that money required

276
00:15:44,200 --> 00:15:48,200
Speaker 4: them to conduct an investigation into the conduct behind the lawsuit,

277
00:15:48,360 --> 00:15:50,440
Speaker 4: and that's how we got to where we are today,

278
00:15:50,480 --> 00:15:52,720
Speaker 4: which is him being impeached by the full House.

279
00:15:53,280 --> 00:15:57,320
Speaker 2: I thought it was unusual that the committee said that

280
00:15:57,400 --> 00:16:00,720
Speaker 2: if he hadn't requested that money, we wouldn't have been

281
00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:05,400
Speaker 2: this investigation. So tell us about the articles of impeachment.

282
00:16:06,040 --> 00:16:08,000
Speaker 4: Yes, I think that's such a great point that you

283
00:16:08,080 --> 00:16:10,680
Speaker 4: highlighted they really made a point of saying, like, we

284
00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:13,400
Speaker 4: wouldn't be doing this if you hadn't asked us for

285
00:16:13,480 --> 00:16:15,800
Speaker 4: this money. And so it's interesting that that was a

286
00:16:15,920 --> 00:16:18,960
Speaker 4: tipping point for them after all these years. But yes,

287
00:16:19,240 --> 00:16:23,680
Speaker 4: they conducted an investigation and they presented these twenty articles

288
00:16:23,680 --> 00:16:28,920
Speaker 4: of impeachment that the full Republican dominated Texas House decided

289
00:16:28,920 --> 00:16:32,520
Speaker 4: to vote and adopt over this past Memorial Day weekend.

290
00:16:33,040 --> 00:16:36,880
Speaker 4: And they're twenty articles that kind of spanned the years

291
00:16:36,880 --> 00:16:39,960
Speaker 4: of allegations against him that we were talking about earlier,

292
00:16:40,320 --> 00:16:44,560
Speaker 4: but they include things like bribery, obstruction of justice, abuse

293
00:16:44,640 --> 00:16:48,520
Speaker 4: of public trust, and things under that umbrella, and the

294
00:16:48,560 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 4: bulk of them are around the allegations that were part

295
00:16:52,160 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 4: of this whistleblower lawsuit that these employees say they were

296
00:16:55,280 --> 00:16:59,280
Speaker 4: fired for reporting this bribery. Paxton has been accused of

297
00:16:59,400 --> 00:17:02,880
Speaker 4: using his own office to aid a wealthy donor, Austin

298
00:17:02,960 --> 00:17:06,720
Speaker 4: real estate developer Meet Paul, who's got his own hosts

299
00:17:06,760 --> 00:17:11,560
Speaker 4: of legal problems and investigations into his business feelings. And

300
00:17:11,920 --> 00:17:14,760
Speaker 4: they say that Paxton was using his office to help

301
00:17:14,840 --> 00:17:18,520
Speaker 4: him and to conceal information from law enforcement, and he

302
00:17:18,640 --> 00:17:23,600
Speaker 4: was potentially giving confidential information to meet Paul about this

303
00:17:23,800 --> 00:17:27,040
Speaker 4: investigation into him, and that's where the bulk of these

304
00:17:27,119 --> 00:17:30,000
Speaker 4: charges come from. They point to really specific actions that

305
00:17:30,080 --> 00:17:33,320
Speaker 4: they say Paxton took while in office in order to

306
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:34,000
Speaker 4: help Paul.

307
00:17:34,920 --> 00:17:39,919
Speaker 2: Were people in Texas or a legislator stunned by the

308
00:17:40,119 --> 00:17:43,440
Speaker 2: overwhelming majority voting to impeach him.

309
00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:47,119
Speaker 4: Absolutely, I don't think I spoke to a single person

310
00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:51,119
Speaker 4: who predicted that there would be an impeachment vote and

311
00:17:51,280 --> 00:17:54,160
Speaker 4: that it would pass with such strong support in the House.

312
00:17:54,600 --> 00:17:57,440
Speaker 4: The final vote was one hundred and twenty one lawmakers

313
00:17:57,520 --> 00:18:01,720
Speaker 4: voting in favor and just twenty three voting against impeaching Paxson,

314
00:18:02,080 --> 00:18:06,280
Speaker 4: and that includes sixty of his Republican colleagues in the House.

315
00:18:06,359 --> 00:18:09,000
Speaker 4: But the matter's not settled with the impeachment is just

316
00:18:09,160 --> 00:18:11,919
Speaker 4: the charges. He hasn't been convicted of anything. Now the

317
00:18:11,960 --> 00:18:13,720
Speaker 4: matter is going to turn over to the Senate, and

318
00:18:13,760 --> 00:18:17,680
Speaker 4: I think there's equal confusion about what might happen there.

319
00:18:18,160 --> 00:18:21,320
Speaker 4: But yes, I mean during the debate on the House floor,

320
00:18:21,800 --> 00:18:23,800
Speaker 4: it was hard to know exactly how the vote was

321
00:18:23,840 --> 00:18:26,800
Speaker 4: going to go. We had a Democrat stand up and say,

322
00:18:27,280 --> 00:18:29,000
Speaker 4: you know, I don't think I can vote in favor

323
00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:31,440
Speaker 4: of impeachment. I don't think we have enough information here,

324
00:18:31,640 --> 00:18:34,000
Speaker 4: and then we had Republicans come up and speak in

325
00:18:34,080 --> 00:18:36,760
Speaker 4: favor of impeachment, and so for a while it was

326
00:18:36,800 --> 00:18:39,160
Speaker 4: hard to know exactly how the final vote was going

327
00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:39,439
Speaker 4: to go.

328
00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:42,840
Speaker 2: Is there any clue as to what his defense.

329
00:18:42,480 --> 00:18:45,320
Speaker 4: Will be, It's hard to say. We haven't heard him

330
00:18:45,440 --> 00:18:49,320
Speaker 4: address the specific charges yet. So far, he's issued a

331
00:18:49,359 --> 00:18:53,199
Speaker 4: few public statements responding to this, and he calls the

332
00:18:53,200 --> 00:18:57,520
Speaker 4: whole thing an illegal investigation and illegal impeachment. He says

333
00:18:57,600 --> 00:19:01,080
Speaker 4: that Republicans who run the Texas govern here have been

334
00:19:01,200 --> 00:19:04,840
Speaker 4: taken by Democrats and they're in Joe Biden's pocket. But

335
00:19:04,880 --> 00:19:08,399
Speaker 4: we haven't heard him speak to this specific charges. His

336
00:19:08,520 --> 00:19:12,280
Speaker 4: office has issued a report that they say disput all

337
00:19:12,320 --> 00:19:15,080
Speaker 4: of the allegations against him. It's not something they produced

338
00:19:15,080 --> 00:19:18,280
Speaker 4: in connection to the impeachment. It's something they had produced prior.

339
00:19:18,920 --> 00:19:22,399
Speaker 4: But the investigators who helped to draft these articles of

340
00:19:22,400 --> 00:19:25,959
Speaker 4: impeachment for the House Committee, they've said that that report

341
00:19:26,080 --> 00:19:29,159
Speaker 4: is full of inaccuracies and wrongdoing at this point, so

342
00:19:29,720 --> 00:19:32,400
Speaker 4: it's really hard to say what we can expect from

343
00:19:32,440 --> 00:19:35,720
Speaker 4: him when this fully goes to trial, and that includes

344
00:19:36,000 --> 00:19:38,440
Speaker 4: what we've been able to learn from these other lossuits

345
00:19:38,560 --> 00:19:41,240
Speaker 4: that I mentioned, none of these cases have really gotten

346
00:19:41,240 --> 00:19:43,760
Speaker 4: to a point where we've had to hear Paxton respond

347
00:19:43,920 --> 00:19:47,080
Speaker 4: specifically to the allegations against him. And that's going to

348
00:19:47,160 --> 00:19:47,680
Speaker 4: change now.

349
00:19:49,000 --> 00:19:52,879
Speaker 2: And I understand his wife is a state senator. Is

350
00:19:52,920 --> 00:19:55,480
Speaker 2: it known yet whether she's going to recuse herself.

351
00:19:56,040 --> 00:19:58,480
Speaker 4: No, that's a huge question. The debate in the Senate

352
00:19:58,640 --> 00:20:01,000
Speaker 4: is going to open up all of these different political

353
00:20:01,119 --> 00:20:04,560
Speaker 4: questions because Paxton himself is a former state senator and

354
00:20:04,600 --> 00:20:07,000
Speaker 4: so he served in that chamber with many of the

355
00:20:07,040 --> 00:20:10,119
Speaker 4: members that are still there to this day. Those, of course,

356
00:20:10,240 --> 00:20:13,840
Speaker 4: are lesser conflicts of interest potentially than his own wife

357
00:20:13,880 --> 00:20:16,600
Speaker 4: being asked to vote on whether he should be convicted

358
00:20:16,640 --> 00:20:20,000
Speaker 4: of these charges. People have called for her to accuse herself,

359
00:20:20,040 --> 00:20:23,520
Speaker 4: but she hasn't said anything. With TenneT Governor Dan Patrick

360
00:20:23,680 --> 00:20:26,560
Speaker 4: is who presides over the Senate in Texas, and he

361
00:20:26,640 --> 00:20:29,720
Speaker 4: is also a Pakistan ally in that he is a

362
00:20:29,960 --> 00:20:33,280
Speaker 4: Trump ally. They've been on the campaign stage with Trump

363
00:20:33,359 --> 00:20:36,280
Speaker 4: when he comes to Texas and they express a lot

364
00:20:36,320 --> 00:20:38,840
Speaker 4: of the same interests. But we've heard Patrick come out

365
00:20:38,840 --> 00:20:41,359
Speaker 4: and say, I want to conduct a really fair trial

366
00:20:41,520 --> 00:20:44,800
Speaker 4: in the Senate. Don't know what that means exactly. That

367
00:20:44,840 --> 00:20:47,439
Speaker 4: remains to be seen. He said that he's planning to

368
00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:51,080
Speaker 4: set a date by no later than the end of August,

369
00:20:51,280 --> 00:20:53,520
Speaker 4: so we're expecting to see some kind of action on

370
00:20:53,600 --> 00:20:55,720
Speaker 4: this this summer. But yeah, we don't really know any

371
00:20:55,760 --> 00:20:59,160
Speaker 4: of the specifics yet. And yes, his wife, Senator Angela Paxton,

372
00:20:59,240 --> 00:21:02,360
Speaker 4: has not said what her role may or may not

373
00:21:02,440 --> 00:21:04,000
Speaker 4: be when that time comes.

374
00:21:04,760 --> 00:21:10,879
Speaker 2: And were there allegations that Paxton threatened several Republican lawmakers

375
00:21:10,960 --> 00:21:15,000
Speaker 2: with political consequences in their next election if they voted

376
00:21:15,040 --> 00:21:15,800
Speaker 2: for impeachment.

377
00:21:16,440 --> 00:21:18,960
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was something that came out during debate on

378
00:21:19,119 --> 00:21:22,280
Speaker 4: the Texas House floor on the articles of impeachment. State

379
00:21:22,320 --> 00:21:26,080
Speaker 4: Representative Charlie Garan got up and said, I'm voting in

380
00:21:26,119 --> 00:21:30,000
Speaker 4: favor of this. I note that within the time since

381
00:21:30,040 --> 00:21:33,440
Speaker 4: these articles have been announced, Attorney General Paxton has been

382
00:21:33,480 --> 00:21:36,280
Speaker 4: calling different lawmakers on the floor and telling them to

383
00:21:36,359 --> 00:21:39,480
Speaker 4: vote against these articles of impeachment or they could face

384
00:21:39,560 --> 00:21:43,240
Speaker 4: political retribution in the next election. We haven't seen any

385
00:21:43,320 --> 00:21:46,119
Speaker 4: lawmakers come forward and say that, yes, that was me.

386
00:21:46,280 --> 00:21:49,520
Speaker 4: I got the call from General Paxton. But that's definitely

387
00:21:49,520 --> 00:21:52,919
Speaker 4: an allegation that's been circulating. People are saying in the

388
00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:57,880
Speaker 4: Senate that he's distributed packets of information to senators defending

389
00:21:57,960 --> 00:22:02,919
Speaker 4: himself from these allegations. So he's definitely doing whatever he

390
00:22:03,160 --> 00:22:06,280
Speaker 4: can to defend himself at this point before court is

391
00:22:06,320 --> 00:22:09,120
Speaker 4: in session, so to speak, and tell.

392
00:22:08,960 --> 00:22:13,399
Speaker 2: Us just how unusual this impeachment is in Texas and

393
00:22:13,440 --> 00:22:15,920
Speaker 2: a fact, across the country, this is.

394
00:22:16,240 --> 00:22:18,439
Speaker 4: Very rare, and so that's why I think there's a

395
00:22:18,480 --> 00:22:21,760
Speaker 4: lot of confusion speculation about what might happen in terms

396
00:22:21,760 --> 00:22:24,280
Speaker 4: of the rules and who can vote, how it's going

397
00:22:24,359 --> 00:22:27,119
Speaker 4: to play out across the whole country. It looks like

398
00:22:27,160 --> 00:22:30,040
Speaker 4: he might be the fourth state attorney general ever to

399
00:22:30,080 --> 00:22:34,320
Speaker 4: be impeached. Most recently, the attorney general in South Dakota

400
00:22:34,560 --> 00:22:37,600
Speaker 4: was impeached and removed from office in twenty twenty two

401
00:22:37,840 --> 00:22:41,159
Speaker 4: after he struck and killed a pedestrian while driving. So

402
00:22:41,320 --> 00:22:43,879
Speaker 4: a really different set of circumstances than what we're looking

403
00:22:43,920 --> 00:22:48,320
Speaker 4: at now, But even within Texas history, it's incredibly rare.

404
00:22:48,400 --> 00:22:52,040
Speaker 4: Texas has impeached only two elected officials ever, and the

405
00:22:52,119 --> 00:22:55,040
Speaker 4: most recent one of those was a district judge in

406
00:22:55,160 --> 00:22:58,960
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy five, and before that it was a governor

407
00:22:59,040 --> 00:23:02,919
Speaker 4: in nineteen seven seventeen. Actually, a few of the current

408
00:23:03,040 --> 00:23:06,159
Speaker 4: members of the Texas House of Representatives were serving in

409
00:23:06,240 --> 00:23:08,800
Speaker 4: the House in nineteen seventy five, so they have been

410
00:23:08,840 --> 00:23:12,720
Speaker 4: part of two historic impeachment votes. But that's just two

411
00:23:12,760 --> 00:23:14,600
Speaker 4: members as far as I can tell. But yes, this

412
00:23:14,680 --> 00:23:18,120
Speaker 4: is incredibly rare process, both in Texas and nationally.

413
00:23:18,800 --> 00:23:22,480
Speaker 2: A few major Republican names are coming to his defense,

414
00:23:22,760 --> 00:23:28,159
Speaker 2: like former President Donald Trump, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Congresswoman

415
00:23:28,440 --> 00:23:32,280
Speaker 2: Marjorie Taylor Green. But does it seem like a lot

416
00:23:32,440 --> 00:23:33,359
Speaker 2: are holding back.

417
00:23:34,080 --> 00:23:36,280
Speaker 4: I think there's a lot that are holding back. I mean,

418
00:23:36,400 --> 00:23:39,120
Speaker 4: I think those would be expected people to come out

419
00:23:39,160 --> 00:23:42,840
Speaker 4: and speak in favor of Paxton. Their views are really aligned,

420
00:23:43,160 --> 00:23:45,280
Speaker 4: and like we said, he's really gone to back for

421
00:23:45,440 --> 00:23:48,879
Speaker 4: Trump time and time again. And I think what's really

422
00:23:48,920 --> 00:23:53,239
Speaker 4: significant about this impeachment, besides the historical context and the

423
00:23:53,280 --> 00:23:57,119
Speaker 4: context of it within Paxton's career, is that this is

424
00:23:57,160 --> 00:24:00,880
Speaker 4: the first time that Republicans in Texas have really been

425
00:24:00,960 --> 00:24:04,679
Speaker 4: forced to say anything about this impeachment. A lot of

426
00:24:04,720 --> 00:24:08,640
Speaker 4: times there's been conversations going into elections about whether Paxton

427
00:24:08,720 --> 00:24:11,640
Speaker 4: will be a drag on the Republican ticket, given these

428
00:24:11,680 --> 00:24:15,120
Speaker 4: allegations against him, but somehow to this point, like high

429
00:24:15,200 --> 00:24:18,480
Speaker 4: ranking Republicans in Texas has been able to avoid speaking

430
00:24:18,520 --> 00:24:21,280
Speaker 4: on this because they've been able to defer to the

431
00:24:21,320 --> 00:24:23,680
Speaker 4: ongoing legal proceedings. You know, they're like, I don't want

432
00:24:23,680 --> 00:24:27,040
Speaker 4: to cast any judgment until a judge says what happens here.

433
00:24:27,640 --> 00:24:30,320
Speaker 4: And so the fact that this many Republicans voted in

434
00:24:30,359 --> 00:24:33,160
Speaker 4: favor of impeachment, I would have expected maybe a bit

435
00:24:33,200 --> 00:24:35,880
Speaker 4: more bull throated support of Pakiston from some of those

436
00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:38,639
Speaker 4: national figures, but I think it's significant that we're not

437
00:24:38,720 --> 00:24:41,800
Speaker 4: really seeing that from any of his allies here at

438
00:24:41,800 --> 00:24:42,800
Speaker 4: home in Texas.

439
00:24:43,040 --> 00:24:45,760
Speaker 2: I know you're going to be watching this carefully. Thanks Madlin.

440
00:24:46,280 --> 00:24:50,199
Speaker 2: That's Madeline Meckelberg, Bloomberg Texas Legal Reporter. And that's it

441
00:24:50,240 --> 00:24:52,840
Speaker 2: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

442
00:24:52,880 --> 00:24:55,320
Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

443
00:24:55,400 --> 00:24:59,040
Speaker 2: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

444
00:24:59,240 --> 00:25:04,280
Speaker 2: and at WHW dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

445
00:25:04,680 --> 00:25:07,240
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

446
00:25:07,320 --> 00:25:11,200
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

447
00:25:11,359 --> 00:25:12,960
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg