1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:17,119
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:17,680 --> 00:00:26,200
Speaker 1: That's the way you're doing. That's what you're doing. It

3
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:33,839
Speaker 1: wasn't exactly money for nothing, but it certainly was an

4
00:00:33,920 --> 00:00:38,880
Speaker 1: unexpected windfall. City Bank accidentally paid nine hundred million dollars

5
00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:41,760
Speaker 1: of its own money to a group of lenders, expecting

6
00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:45,120
Speaker 1: an interest payment on behalf of Revlon paying off the

7
00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:48,519
Speaker 1: loan in full. Some of the lenders returned four hundred

8
00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:51,879
Speaker 1: million dollars, and City Bank took the other investment firms

9
00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:55,240
Speaker 1: to court, and after a trial, a federal judge ruled

10
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:58,640
Speaker 1: that City Bank is out the five hundred million dollars

11
00:00:58,880 --> 00:01:01,720
Speaker 1: because of a thirty year old legal precedent that essentially

12
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:06,560
Speaker 1: says finders keepers joining me is Chris Dolmesh, Bloomberg Legal reporter.

13
00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:10,320
Speaker 1: Did this verdict come as a surprise, It did, so,

14
00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:14,000
Speaker 1: it was not necessarily complete shock. Some of our own

15
00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:17,119
Speaker 1: analysts had seen the way the judge was going and

16
00:01:17,160 --> 00:01:19,880
Speaker 1: sort of thought that he was leaning towards saying that

17
00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:22,160
Speaker 1: the hedge funds didn't have to give back the money.

18
00:01:22,400 --> 00:01:26,360
Speaker 1: But it certainly was not locked in stone, and a

19
00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:28,280
Speaker 1: lot of people thought that City Bank was going to

20
00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:30,240
Speaker 1: escape by and be able to get some money back

21
00:01:30,680 --> 00:01:33,600
Speaker 1: despite some of the problems that they documented during the trial.

22
00:01:33,680 --> 00:01:36,400
Speaker 1: But the judge felt otherwise. He felt that the creditors

23
00:01:36,400 --> 00:01:39,480
Speaker 1: had established that they didn't know this was a mistake

24
00:01:39,760 --> 00:01:42,360
Speaker 1: and that they thought they were actually getting their loans

25
00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:46,000
Speaker 1: paid off. Go back and explain how this happened, whose

26
00:01:46,040 --> 00:01:49,960
Speaker 1: fault it was. It happened because of the failure of

27
00:01:50,120 --> 00:01:53,320
Speaker 1: a system they used as City Bank to send out

28
00:01:53,680 --> 00:01:57,520
Speaker 1: loan interest payments on a regular basis, usually scheduled interest

29
00:01:57,560 --> 00:02:00,880
Speaker 1: payments on that quarterly interest pay and things like that.

30
00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:03,800
Speaker 1: The system is called a six eye system, meaning there's

31
00:02:03,840 --> 00:02:06,760
Speaker 1: three people that checked the way that the wires sent out.

32
00:02:07,080 --> 00:02:10,000
Speaker 1: But that system failed. There was a mistake made on

33
00:02:10,040 --> 00:02:12,960
Speaker 1: a digital form that was being filled out, and they

34
00:02:12,960 --> 00:02:15,959
Speaker 1: didn't realize it at the time, and by the time

35
00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:19,280
Speaker 1: they realized it the next morning, nine million dollars had

36
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:21,799
Speaker 1: gone out. So it was essentially a failure of a

37
00:02:21,960 --> 00:02:24,800
Speaker 1: kind of an antiquated system at the bank that they

38
00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:27,880
Speaker 1: were already in the process of replacing. At the time

39
00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:30,880
Speaker 1: that had happened, the lenders were locked in a battle

40
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:36,520
Speaker 1: with Revlon over its restructuring. They get this unexpected windfall

41
00:02:36,680 --> 00:02:39,799
Speaker 1: out of the blue, and the judge found that they

42
00:02:39,800 --> 00:02:43,680
Speaker 1: were correct to conclude that it was money being paid

43
00:02:43,880 --> 00:02:47,400
Speaker 1: for what they were owed. Well, it's not necessarily they

44
00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:51,119
Speaker 1: corrected that. He established that they had no other knowledge

45
00:02:51,200 --> 00:02:53,639
Speaker 1: that would have convinced them otherwise until they got a

46
00:02:53,720 --> 00:02:56,440
Speaker 1: notice from City Bank later in the day that the

47
00:02:56,600 --> 00:02:59,640
Speaker 1: transfers had been a mistake and asking for the money back.

48
00:03:00,120 --> 00:03:03,160
Speaker 1: Their testimony was pretty consistent that they didn't know what

49
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:06,040
Speaker 1: this was, but their best guests was that they were

50
00:03:06,040 --> 00:03:08,880
Speaker 1: actually paying off the loans in full. They were engaged

51
00:03:08,880 --> 00:03:11,760
Speaker 1: in this big restructuring battle with Revlon. Some of the

52
00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:14,160
Speaker 1: people testified that they weren't sure if this was some

53
00:03:14,280 --> 00:03:17,520
Speaker 1: sort of move by Revlon to extinguish the debt, to

54
00:03:17,639 --> 00:03:20,639
Speaker 1: increase leverage, you know, on other lenders and that sort

55
00:03:20,639 --> 00:03:22,960
Speaker 1: of thing. So there was a lot of uncertainty about

56
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:26,080
Speaker 1: what this was, and really what the judge found at

57
00:03:26,080 --> 00:03:28,680
Speaker 1: the end was that it kind of would have boggled

58
00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:32,000
Speaker 1: the mind to think that this would have been a

59
00:03:32,080 --> 00:03:34,400
Speaker 1: mistake of the magnitude that it was by one of

60
00:03:34,440 --> 00:03:37,880
Speaker 1: the world's largest financial institutions. Tell me about this, The

61
00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:42,040
Speaker 1: judge said. The outcome was surprisingly straightforward, even if it

62
00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:45,920
Speaker 1: may not seem the fairest result. I mean, he's saying

63
00:03:46,080 --> 00:03:49,400
Speaker 1: in terms of the law and the precedence that he followed,

64
00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:52,160
Speaker 1: which is a thirty year old New York State case

65
00:03:52,280 --> 00:03:55,080
Speaker 1: in which the money went out the door and it

66
00:03:55,160 --> 00:03:58,080
Speaker 1: was spent before even the credits to even get a

67
00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:00,200
Speaker 1: notice after them, and that was not the case year.

68
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:02,920
Speaker 1: But in the end he just found that there was

69
00:04:03,320 --> 00:04:06,360
Speaker 1: enough uncertainty about it. They certainly could have thought that

70
00:04:06,480 --> 00:04:09,360
Speaker 1: this was a legit payoff of the loan, given the

71
00:04:09,400 --> 00:04:12,600
Speaker 1: contentious history between the parties. Now that's gonna be a

72
00:04:12,600 --> 00:04:15,960
Speaker 1: big issue on appeal I. And there's an interesting footnote

73
00:04:16,240 --> 00:04:20,320
Speaker 1: in the decision where the judge says there's not really

74
00:04:20,360 --> 00:04:23,760
Speaker 1: a lot of precedent in case law to establish whether

75
00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:27,640
Speaker 1: or not the defendants had to show, by her ponderance

76
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:30,880
Speaker 1: of the evidence that they were not unnoticed. In other words,

77
00:04:30,920 --> 00:04:33,760
Speaker 1: they would have had to have proven that they didn't

78
00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:36,360
Speaker 1: know this was a mistake. But he also said because

79
00:04:36,400 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 1: he can't prove a negative, that he didn't have to

80
00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:41,800
Speaker 1: reach that question. But that might be an area where

81
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:45,160
Speaker 1: the appeals court kind of seeks to see if if

82
00:04:45,200 --> 00:04:47,800
Speaker 1: it was the burden of the defendants to prove that

83
00:04:47,880 --> 00:04:51,560
Speaker 1: they had no idea that this was a mistake, that

84
00:04:51,600 --> 00:04:54,159
Speaker 1: there's testimony that they at least thought maybe there was

85
00:04:54,400 --> 00:04:58,279
Speaker 1: something wrong happened here. On appeal, they can appeal based

86
00:04:58,320 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 1: on the facts or on the lass. Based on the facts.

87
00:05:01,920 --> 00:05:04,560
Speaker 1: What's the likelihood of a good outcome for City Bank

88
00:05:05,320 --> 00:05:07,240
Speaker 1: pretty slay. I mean the fact that the facts and

89
00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:09,360
Speaker 1: they were pretty established a trial at least with the

90
00:05:09,440 --> 00:05:12,159
Speaker 1: judge bound. So they'd have to prove that the judge

91
00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:15,320
Speaker 1: totally got the law wrong and his interpretation of the

92
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:18,640
Speaker 1: facts is completely wrong, and that's going to be an

93
00:05:18,680 --> 00:05:21,560
Speaker 1: uphill battle given the fact that he's pretty much relied

94
00:05:21,560 --> 00:05:24,040
Speaker 1: on precedent to make his ruling. Like he said, it's

95
00:05:24,080 --> 00:05:26,600
Speaker 1: not the fairest outcome in the world, but it is

96
00:05:26,600 --> 00:05:29,240
Speaker 1: pretty straightforward, and there isn't a lot of precedent in

97
00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:32,839
Speaker 1: this area. You just don't have large financial institutions stakingly

98
00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:37,840
Speaker 1: sending almost a billion dollars to creditors that are involved

99
00:05:37,880 --> 00:05:41,039
Speaker 1: in a contentious dispute every day. So that was kind

100
00:05:41,040 --> 00:05:44,120
Speaker 1: of the problem with this case. And this case might

101
00:05:44,200 --> 00:05:46,760
Speaker 1: help clarify the law in a lot of those areas,

102
00:05:47,000 --> 00:05:49,320
Speaker 1: or it just might make it murkier. As experts have

103
00:05:49,400 --> 00:05:51,640
Speaker 1: told me, this is a very murky area of the law.

104
00:05:52,120 --> 00:05:54,400
Speaker 1: You know, these are kind of black Swan events. When

105
00:05:54,400 --> 00:05:57,599
Speaker 1: we see these things happen. It's very interesting and it

106
00:05:57,680 --> 00:06:00,200
Speaker 1: raises a lot of questions, but it doesn't necessary really

107
00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:04,400
Speaker 1: make it clear what happens when something like this goes wrong.

108
00:06:04,800 --> 00:06:06,960
Speaker 1: So I take it that the New York Court of

109
00:06:07,000 --> 00:06:10,240
Speaker 1: Appeals could change the law if it wanted to, But

110
00:06:10,320 --> 00:06:14,040
Speaker 1: this is going up to the Second Circuit Federal Court Appeals.

111
00:06:14,400 --> 00:06:17,279
Speaker 1: The likelihood that they would be able to overturn the

112
00:06:17,320 --> 00:06:20,359
Speaker 1: law that way is slim. I mean, certainly the Second

113
00:06:20,400 --> 00:06:23,680
Speaker 1: Circuit could ask the Court of Appeals a question to

114
00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:26,480
Speaker 1: certify a question involved in the case, but they wouldn't

115
00:06:26,520 --> 00:06:29,800
Speaker 1: make the ultimate decision. If City Bank does not win

116
00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:33,839
Speaker 1: an appeal, City Bank now holds the five billion dollar

117
00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:39,320
Speaker 1: loan of Revlon. That is the nillion dollar question as

118
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:42,640
Speaker 1: it is what happens to that debt. Do they become

119
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:46,000
Speaker 1: the de facto owners of the debt? Do they go

120
00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:49,279
Speaker 1: after Revalon in some way? That's there's a lot of

121
00:06:49,360 --> 00:06:53,160
Speaker 1: questions as what happens with that next, and it's not

122
00:06:53,279 --> 00:06:55,719
Speaker 1: really clear what the road will be on that. I

123
00:06:55,760 --> 00:06:59,560
Speaker 1: mean until there's an actual judgment in terms of the

124
00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:01,800
Speaker 1: end of the appeal and they get a final judgment.

125
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:04,039
Speaker 1: At this point, I would say it's status quo because

126
00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:07,479
Speaker 1: the money is frozen and Revlon is still obligated to

127
00:07:07,560 --> 00:07:11,240
Speaker 1: make regular interest payments on that debt. Looking at the future,

128
00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:15,040
Speaker 1: if this case remains as it is on the books,

129
00:07:15,200 --> 00:07:20,480
Speaker 1: will this expose banks that facilitate wire transfers or serve

130
00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:25,640
Speaker 1: as administrators to more liability? Might there be change in

131
00:07:25,800 --> 00:07:28,679
Speaker 1: rules because of this? I mean at the very least,

132
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:32,200
Speaker 1: you know, City Group even before the lawsuit and the trial,

133
00:07:32,360 --> 00:07:35,840
Speaker 1: it was already revealing its internal controls because of responses

134
00:07:35,880 --> 00:07:38,960
Speaker 1: from regulators about these kind of problems with this system

135
00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:41,720
Speaker 1: and other things that had happened. So you know, on

136
00:07:41,760 --> 00:07:44,400
Speaker 1: that level, there will certainly probably be changes at City

137
00:07:44,400 --> 00:07:47,120
Speaker 1: Group that will probably have a full autopsy of what

138
00:07:47,240 --> 00:07:51,560
Speaker 1: happened here. As to other transfer agents, administrative agents and

139
00:07:51,600 --> 00:07:54,320
Speaker 1: banks that service administrative agents, and it's hard to say.

140
00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: Experts have said, you know, it certainly could increase the

141
00:07:57,400 --> 00:08:00,280
Speaker 1: cost of doing this kind of business, but this is

142
00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:02,920
Speaker 1: not a big profit center for banks. These are more

143
00:08:03,400 --> 00:08:07,400
Speaker 1: services they provide in order to be close to borrowers

144
00:08:07,640 --> 00:08:09,720
Speaker 1: and you know, to get better business and to provide

145
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:12,880
Speaker 1: a service. And so therefore, you know, it might just

146
00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:15,000
Speaker 1: lead to some banks you decide they just don't want

147
00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:17,840
Speaker 1: to do this anymore for the very little amount of

148
00:08:17,880 --> 00:08:19,360
Speaker 1: money they get out of it. It might just need

149
00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:22,240
Speaker 1: to lead to another layer of compliance. Um with more

150
00:08:22,360 --> 00:08:24,640
Speaker 1: lawyers who have to sign off on these things, are

151
00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:29,440
Speaker 1: certainly a more robust and uniform way of making these transfers.

152
00:08:29,880 --> 00:08:34,800
Speaker 1: Thanks Chris. That's Crystal Mesh Bloomberg Legal reporter joining me now.

153
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:37,520
Speaker 1: Is one of the attorneys for the winning investment firms,

154
00:08:38,000 --> 00:08:41,960
Speaker 1: Adam Abenson, a partner a Quinn Emmanuel. Many people were

155
00:08:42,040 --> 00:08:46,400
Speaker 1: surprised by the judges ruling. Were you surprised? We were pleased,

156
00:08:46,400 --> 00:08:48,880
Speaker 1: but not surprised. We have been deep in the law

157
00:08:49,120 --> 00:08:51,760
Speaker 1: on the case over the course of four months at

158
00:08:51,760 --> 00:08:56,000
Speaker 1: that point and understood that, notwithstanding with some other folks

159
00:08:56,200 --> 00:08:59,960
Speaker 1: thought we had a really effluent defense under the longest

160
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:02,959
Speaker 1: that wished doctrine in New York. What do you think

161
00:09:03,080 --> 00:09:07,400
Speaker 1: the trial turned on? What point in the trial convinced

162
00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:10,640
Speaker 1: the judge. It's an interesting question here. I don't know

163
00:09:10,679 --> 00:09:13,240
Speaker 1: that I could point to one moment or one witness.

164
00:09:13,360 --> 00:09:16,480
Speaker 1: I think it was becoming increasingly clear over the course

165
00:09:16,559 --> 00:09:19,680
Speaker 1: of the trial that no one in the position of

166
00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:22,959
Speaker 1: our clients would have thought that this was a mistake

167
00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:25,959
Speaker 1: by City Bank. They had never made a mistake of

168
00:09:26,000 --> 00:09:29,719
Speaker 1: that type or on that scale, and under long established

169
00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:32,320
Speaker 1: doctrine in New York. It's all under a case called

170
00:09:32,320 --> 00:09:35,960
Speaker 1: bank worms. That that really was a key and I

171
00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:40,120
Speaker 1: think ultimately this positive point. So the average person might

172
00:09:40,160 --> 00:09:43,120
Speaker 1: look at this and say, if I went to a

173
00:09:43,160 --> 00:09:47,000
Speaker 1: bank machine and fifty dollar bills just started flying out,

174
00:09:47,320 --> 00:09:50,080
Speaker 1: I would have to return it. So why shouldn't the

175
00:09:50,120 --> 00:09:53,520
Speaker 1: hedge funds have to return this windfall? Even the judge

176
00:09:53,559 --> 00:09:57,200
Speaker 1: said that it might not seem like the fairest result. Well, look,

177
00:09:57,240 --> 00:09:59,920
Speaker 1: I think that the key difference between, you know, the

178
00:10:00,120 --> 00:10:03,079
Speaker 1: the money machinery pathetical and what we had here it

179
00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:06,800
Speaker 1: was undisputed that the lenders represented by our clients were

180
00:10:06,840 --> 00:10:10,640
Speaker 1: actually owed the amounts they received. What they got was

181
00:10:10,880 --> 00:10:13,840
Speaker 1: to the penny there as in principle, and a crude interest.

182
00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:17,920
Speaker 1: So this wasn't, you know, the kind of windfall the

183
00:10:17,920 --> 00:10:21,040
Speaker 1: other side wanted to portray it. What it was was

184
00:10:21,080 --> 00:10:24,360
Speaker 1: a group of lenders receiving exactly what they were oute

185
00:10:24,640 --> 00:10:27,600
Speaker 1: and that's an important distinction under New York law, and

186
00:10:27,679 --> 00:10:30,079
Speaker 1: we think it was a compelling distinction here at trial.

187
00:10:30,559 --> 00:10:33,000
Speaker 1: City Bank says it's going to appeal. What do you

188
00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:36,320
Speaker 1: think their chances are an appeal? Look, I hesitate to

189
00:10:36,320 --> 00:10:39,679
Speaker 1: try and sort of handicapped, you know what arguments City

190
00:10:39,720 --> 00:10:43,120
Speaker 1: Bank might make. We certainly think that court did an

191
00:10:43,160 --> 00:10:46,000
Speaker 1: excellent job in its opinion. We think it gave a

192
00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:48,800
Speaker 1: lot of detail and explanation as to why it was

193
00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:51,720
Speaker 1: persuaded as it was. Much of its analysis has to

194
00:10:51,760 --> 00:10:54,480
Speaker 1: do with what the court ocurred and saw from the witnesses.

195
00:10:54,880 --> 00:10:56,839
Speaker 1: We're confident in our case. We very much think we're

196
00:10:56,920 --> 00:10:59,240
Speaker 1: right on the law. And if City think, you know,

197
00:10:59,280 --> 00:11:02,040
Speaker 1: follow us through its plans, we certainly like our chances.

198
00:11:02,320 --> 00:11:05,800
Speaker 1: There are some legal scholars who are saying that the

199
00:11:05,840 --> 00:11:08,680
Speaker 1: New York Court of Appeals should change the law. I

200
00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:11,000
Speaker 1: don't expect that it will change, and I don't see

201
00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:13,160
Speaker 1: why it should. I think that the decision that we

202
00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:16,160
Speaker 1: relied on, which has decided I think over thirty years ago,

203
00:11:16,280 --> 00:11:18,640
Speaker 1: has has now stood the test of time. The Court

204
00:11:18,679 --> 00:11:22,160
Speaker 1: of Appeals decided that decision as it did in part

205
00:11:22,320 --> 00:11:25,240
Speaker 1: because it wanted to incentivize banks and not to make

206
00:11:25,280 --> 00:11:27,920
Speaker 1: these kinds of mistakes. And as a lot of the

207
00:11:27,920 --> 00:11:30,320
Speaker 1: reports for indicating there haven't been a lot of these

208
00:11:30,400 --> 00:11:32,959
Speaker 1: kinds of mistakes. So I think that authority in large

209
00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:35,480
Speaker 1: part has worked. Um So, I I don't think there's

210
00:11:35,480 --> 00:11:38,360
Speaker 1: a need for a change. I wouldn't anticipate a change,

211
00:11:39,200 --> 00:11:42,559
Speaker 1: um And. And we think certainly that the decision here

212
00:11:42,640 --> 00:11:45,840
Speaker 1: was very much in keeping with what the President required.

213
00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:49,600
Speaker 1: What was the highlight of the trial for you? You You know,

214
00:11:49,640 --> 00:11:52,679
Speaker 1: we had we had a really outstanding team working on this,

215
00:11:53,559 --> 00:11:58,080
Speaker 1: Kates um I was co counsel of trial with two

216
00:11:58,120 --> 00:12:02,120
Speaker 1: partners of mine at Quinnmanuel um Ben Finstone and Bob Lloydman.

217
00:12:02,880 --> 00:12:06,600
Speaker 1: Both of them are outstanding and working closely with them,

218
00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:09,120
Speaker 1: working in the trenches with them, um And that was

219
00:12:09,120 --> 00:12:11,560
Speaker 1: the highlight of it. We also had really an excellent

220
00:12:11,600 --> 00:12:15,120
Speaker 1: team of associates involved, um And. And. Look, it's not

221
00:12:15,320 --> 00:12:17,959
Speaker 1: it's never easy to be in trial. It's intense, it's

222
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:20,600
Speaker 1: a lot of hours, but it was a really fantastic

223
00:12:20,600 --> 00:12:23,280
Speaker 1: group to be doing it with. I was referring to,

224
00:12:23,400 --> 00:12:27,560
Speaker 1: for example, if there was a cross examination or a

225
00:12:27,640 --> 00:12:32,000
Speaker 1: direct examination that that stood out to you. We divveed

226
00:12:32,040 --> 00:12:34,720
Speaker 1: up the witnesses, um, you know among the group that

227
00:12:34,760 --> 00:12:38,360
Speaker 1: I mentioned, UM, And so for me, the high heights

228
00:12:38,400 --> 00:12:40,599
Speaker 1: were the ones that I handled. UM. You know, I

229
00:12:40,640 --> 00:12:43,040
Speaker 1: don't know if that's much the the the answer that

230
00:12:43,080 --> 00:12:45,440
Speaker 1: you'd be looking for, but I I did a couple

231
00:12:45,480 --> 00:12:48,080
Speaker 1: of the early witnesses who were the city bank folks

232
00:12:48,080 --> 00:12:51,760
Speaker 1: who were actually involved in um, uh you know, making

233
00:12:51,760 --> 00:12:55,120
Speaker 1: the transfer, UM. And that was very much the start

234
00:12:55,160 --> 00:12:58,319
Speaker 1: of the case, sort of getting feet wet um. And

235
00:12:58,720 --> 00:13:00,959
Speaker 1: uh you know that that it was, you know, an

236
00:13:00,960 --> 00:13:05,680
Speaker 1: exciting opportunity for me to be handling those and again

237
00:13:05,800 --> 00:13:09,480
Speaker 1: we we we liked how the evidence was coming in

238
00:13:09,559 --> 00:13:12,160
Speaker 1: and uh you know, we felt as if it stayed

239
00:13:12,160 --> 00:13:14,240
Speaker 1: on a good track from there on. I want to

240
00:13:14,240 --> 00:13:17,480
Speaker 1: emphasize again what a great team effort this was, um.

241
00:13:17,559 --> 00:13:19,520
Speaker 1: You know, not only with the partners and associate if

242
00:13:19,520 --> 00:13:22,800
Speaker 1: I worked on, but also our firm quin Immanual, which UM,

243
00:13:22,840 --> 00:13:28,800
Speaker 1: you know, it takes cases that that others might think unusual, um,

244
00:13:29,000 --> 00:13:31,360
Speaker 1: and have we have a great track record of winning them,

245
00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:33,000
Speaker 1: and UM, you know we're proud to I knew with

246
00:13:33,040 --> 00:13:37,400
Speaker 1: the result here. Thanks Adam. That's Adam Abenson of Queen Emmanuel.

247
00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:40,480
Speaker 1: And that's it for the edition of Bloomberg Law. I'm

248
00:13:40,559 --> 00:13:42,800
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg