1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,800
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. As Paul manaforts

6
00:00:22,800 --> 00:00:25,480
Speaker 1: trial is scheduled to begin Monday after a week delay.

7
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:29,120
Speaker 1: Here's President Trump speaking about his former campaign manager with

8
00:00:29,240 --> 00:00:33,520
Speaker 1: Fox News is Sean Hannity last week. Paul Manafort, Who's

9
00:00:33,560 --> 00:00:35,760
Speaker 1: who really is a nice man? You look at what's

10
00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:39,760
Speaker 1: going on with him. It's like al Capone two thousand

11
00:00:39,800 --> 00:00:42,640
Speaker 1: and five tax case on a case that I guess

12
00:00:43,680 --> 00:00:46,519
Speaker 1: it's just a sad thing. It's a very sad thing

13
00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:49,239
Speaker 1: for our country to say this joining us. He as

14
00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:52,400
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, head of the criminal investigations

15
00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:55,520
Speaker 1: in White Color Practice at McCarter and English. Bob, I

16
00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 1: don't know whether comparing someone to a gangster evokes much sympathy,

17
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:02,960
Speaker 1: but it is the case against Manafort for tax and

18
00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:09,240
Speaker 1: bank fraud, similar to the case against Capone for tax evasion. Well, June,

19
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:12,480
Speaker 1: I think it's more complicated than that. In this case.

20
00:01:12,600 --> 00:01:15,800
Speaker 1: Manafort is accused of making tens of millions of dollars

21
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:20,600
Speaker 1: while working for former pro Russia Ukrainian President of Victor

22
00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:24,839
Speaker 1: Yana Kovic and his party, and then concealing those earnings

23
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:28,520
Speaker 1: and the offshore bank accounts that held them from U

24
00:01:28,560 --> 00:01:32,240
Speaker 1: S authorities. He's also charged with misleading lenders about his

25
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:35,679
Speaker 1: finances to induce them to make twenty million dollars in

26
00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:37,560
Speaker 1: loans to him. So I think what we're going to

27
00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:40,560
Speaker 1: see in this case is a is a case that

28
00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:43,920
Speaker 1: is very heavy in terms of documents, and it's really

29
00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:47,000
Speaker 1: going to be a follow the documents, follow the money

30
00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 1: type of prosecution. The prosecutors have listed more than four

31
00:01:51,280 --> 00:01:54,440
Speaker 1: exhibits for trial, but they appear to be trying to

32
00:01:54,560 --> 00:01:56,800
Speaker 1: ensure that it's not just going to be a boring

33
00:01:57,040 --> 00:02:01,040
Speaker 1: trial of bank records and business contract and tax returns.

34
00:02:01,080 --> 00:02:05,360
Speaker 1: Tell us about some of the things they have in mind. Well,

35
00:02:05,400 --> 00:02:09,520
Speaker 1: any good prosecution has to involve a narrative. It's not

36
00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:12,080
Speaker 1: simply getting up there and reeling off a series of

37
00:02:12,160 --> 00:02:16,120
Speaker 1: documents and asking the jurors to connect the dots themselves.

38
00:02:16,160 --> 00:02:18,360
Speaker 1: So I think what we can expect here is that

39
00:02:18,440 --> 00:02:22,080
Speaker 1: prosecutors are going to paint this tale of Mantifort making

40
00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:25,799
Speaker 1: tens of millions of dollars as this unregistered agent for Ukraine,

41
00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:29,960
Speaker 1: than steering the money into these offshore accounts in countries

42
00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:34,239
Speaker 1: around the globe, than using that money to buy houses, cars,

43
00:02:34,240 --> 00:02:38,480
Speaker 1: expensive clothing and jewelry, and ultimately lying to US authorities

44
00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:41,040
Speaker 1: and to banks about what he earned with his wealth.

45
00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:45,239
Speaker 1: It's basically a case that involves tax evasion and bank fraud.

46
00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:48,640
Speaker 1: And part of that case will allow prosecutors to show

47
00:02:48,639 --> 00:02:53,399
Speaker 1: photographs of houses and jewelry, expensive renovations that were done

48
00:02:53,440 --> 00:02:57,040
Speaker 1: on various properties that Mantifort owned out in the Hampton's

49
00:02:57,160 --> 00:03:00,160
Speaker 1: and in Brooklyn and in other locations, and so he

50
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:03,519
Speaker 1: they're going to show not only how he earned his money,

51
00:03:03,840 --> 00:03:06,640
Speaker 1: how he concealed the money, but then ultimately that he

52
00:03:06,760 --> 00:03:09,280
Speaker 1: used that money for his own personal benefit, to show

53
00:03:09,280 --> 00:03:11,880
Speaker 1: that he in fact owned the money, that he controlled it,

54
00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:14,120
Speaker 1: and he should have reported on his taxes but failed

55
00:03:14,160 --> 00:03:16,720
Speaker 1: to do so. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Well,

56
00:03:17,080 --> 00:03:19,840
Speaker 1: in light of all the evidence that prosecutors seem to have,

57
00:03:20,200 --> 00:03:25,960
Speaker 1: what kind of defense might Manafort put up. Well, Manaford

58
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:28,720
Speaker 1: has an experienced legal team, and he apparently has the

59
00:03:28,880 --> 00:03:33,440
Speaker 1: financial wherewithal to attack the government's case because he's done

60
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:36,560
Speaker 1: so very aggressively so far, so I think we can

61
00:03:36,600 --> 00:03:39,640
Speaker 1: expect to see prosecutors, I'm sorry, I expect that we

62
00:03:39,680 --> 00:03:42,120
Speaker 1: can expect to see his defense lawyers going after the

63
00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:44,920
Speaker 1: government's case in a in a very aggressive way of

64
00:03:44,920 --> 00:03:47,760
Speaker 1: continuing on the path that they've already started here, which

65
00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:51,240
Speaker 1: will mean really attacking the key points in the government's case,

66
00:03:51,520 --> 00:03:56,120
Speaker 1: which is manafort state of mind, the government's requirement that

67
00:03:56,200 --> 00:03:59,120
Speaker 1: they show that he controlled those offshore accounts, and the

68
00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:02,560
Speaker 1: history of off short income. Part of the government's case

69
00:04:02,680 --> 00:04:05,040
Speaker 1: is going to be a reliance on his one time

70
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:08,280
Speaker 1: right hand man, Rick Gates, and some of those accounts

71
00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:10,960
Speaker 1: were set up by Gates. The government's going to argue

72
00:04:11,000 --> 00:04:14,160
Speaker 1: that Manafort was aware that those accounts were set up

73
00:04:14,160 --> 00:04:16,839
Speaker 1: and that he'd benefited from those accounts. But clearly the

74
00:04:16,880 --> 00:04:19,960
Speaker 1: defense is going to attack Gates's credibility, and the defense

75
00:04:20,040 --> 00:04:23,800
Speaker 1: has at least something to work with because Gates, in

76
00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:28,520
Speaker 1: pleading guilty, acknowledged that he failed to report uh income,

77
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:31,599
Speaker 1: that he used three million dollars from offshore accounts for

78
00:04:31,640 --> 00:04:35,080
Speaker 1: his own mortgages, and his children's tuition and interior decorating,

79
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:39,760
Speaker 1: and Gates was without or without any doubt central to

80
00:04:39,800 --> 00:04:42,919
Speaker 1: this case. He opened up fifty five accounts allegedly with

81
00:04:43,000 --> 00:04:47,080
Speaker 1: thirteen financial institutions over a dozen years. So the defense

82
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,320
Speaker 1: is going to have some opportunity to attack Gates his

83
00:04:50,360 --> 00:04:54,240
Speaker 1: credibility and in doing so try to distance their client

84
00:04:54,400 --> 00:04:56,320
Speaker 1: from these crimes and show that he did not have

85
00:04:56,360 --> 00:04:58,839
Speaker 1: the state of mind to conceal these assets from the

86
00:04:58,880 --> 00:05:01,839
Speaker 1: government and was not guilty of the charges that the

87
00:05:01,880 --> 00:05:04,240
Speaker 1: government has brought against him. But when I asked you

88
00:05:04,279 --> 00:05:07,919
Speaker 1: about one thing, which is the prosecutors gave Manaforts lawyers

89
00:05:08,440 --> 00:05:11,599
Speaker 1: twenty thousand documents this month, and that's why the judge

90
00:05:11,880 --> 00:05:15,159
Speaker 1: granted the defense request to push back the trial a week.

91
00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:18,800
Speaker 1: The prosecutors had the late handover of documents wouldn't affect

92
00:05:18,839 --> 00:05:22,680
Speaker 1: Manaforts defense because the only new material was photographs and images.

93
00:05:23,440 --> 00:05:26,600
Speaker 1: Is that late timing suspicious in any way as sort

94
00:05:26,640 --> 00:05:30,560
Speaker 1: of game playing, Well, I don't really think it's suspicious,

95
00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:33,359
Speaker 1: because it's not unusual for the government to continue to

96
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:36,800
Speaker 1: be investigating right up to the day of trial. But

97
00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:40,200
Speaker 1: I also think that it was quite predictable that the

98
00:05:40,279 --> 00:05:42,640
Speaker 1: judge is going to give some additional time because merely

99
00:05:42,680 --> 00:05:46,480
Speaker 1: because prosecutors are saying that this evidence is not relevant,

100
00:05:46,839 --> 00:05:49,120
Speaker 1: um doesn't mean that it might not be relevant to

101
00:05:49,200 --> 00:05:51,480
Speaker 1: the defense. Like the defense really doesn't have to take

102
00:05:51,520 --> 00:05:53,479
Speaker 1: prosecutors words for it that there could not be some

103
00:05:53,560 --> 00:05:58,200
Speaker 1: exculpatory information in those documents. And a good defense lawyer

104
00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:00,200
Speaker 1: is going to be familiar with all the documents that

105
00:06:00,279 --> 00:06:03,840
Speaker 1: they have in their possession through discovery. So what the

106
00:06:03,920 --> 00:06:06,440
Speaker 1: judge did here is split the baby in a sense.

107
00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:09,559
Speaker 1: Because the defense had asked for a longer adjournment, trying

108
00:06:09,560 --> 00:06:12,080
Speaker 1: to push this trial back beyond the other trial that's

109
00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:14,919
Speaker 1: scheduled in September. The judge refused to do that, but

110
00:06:14,960 --> 00:06:17,000
Speaker 1: he did give them an extra week to go through

111
00:06:17,040 --> 00:06:19,440
Speaker 1: these documents that they just received within the last month.

112
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:21,719
Speaker 1: Only about a minute, your Bob. But this will be

113
00:06:21,760 --> 00:06:25,400
Speaker 1: the first court test for the Special Council's team. So

114
00:06:25,440 --> 00:06:27,840
Speaker 1: even though it's on bank fraud and tax charges, how

115
00:06:27,880 --> 00:06:32,159
Speaker 1: important is the result here to the Special Council? It's

116
00:06:32,279 --> 00:06:35,240
Speaker 1: enormously important. I can't imagine a case where the stakes

117
00:06:35,279 --> 00:06:39,160
Speaker 1: are higher. Obviously, the credibility of this investigation has been

118
00:06:39,200 --> 00:06:43,040
Speaker 1: attacked by the president has been attacked by other people

119
00:06:43,400 --> 00:06:48,039
Speaker 1: in Congress and other interest groups. Um, Robert Mueller has

120
00:06:48,080 --> 00:06:50,720
Speaker 1: to show that he is doing his job, that this

121
00:06:50,839 --> 00:06:55,680
Speaker 1: is not uh, simply a phishing expedition, and so uh

122
00:06:55,720 --> 00:06:59,880
Speaker 1: it's absolutely critically important for the credibility of this special

123
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:03,320
Speaker 1: helpful investigation that they make some of these charges stick.

124
00:07:03,400 --> 00:07:05,920
Speaker 1: And it's going to be the defense's job to try

125
00:07:05,960 --> 00:07:08,279
Speaker 1: to make sure that doesn't happen. All Right, Bob, thanks

126
00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:14,720
Speaker 1: so much. That's Robert Mint's partner at McCarter in English.

127
00:07:15,200 --> 00:07:18,440
Speaker 1: Last karate, MGM Resorts sued the victims of the shooting

128
00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:21,360
Speaker 1: at its Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas in October,

129
00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:24,760
Speaker 1: using an anti terrorism law that could wipe out its

130
00:07:24,800 --> 00:07:28,239
Speaker 1: liability for what was the worst mass shooting in US history.

131
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:32,480
Speaker 1: It didn't take long for the hashtag boycott MGM Resorts

132
00:07:32,520 --> 00:07:35,760
Speaker 1: to appear on Twitter. Katherine Lombardo, a lawyer for some

133
00:07:35,840 --> 00:07:38,239
Speaker 1: of the shooting victims, says, the lawsuit is a trick.

134
00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:42,720
Speaker 1: This was not a terrorist attack. This was negligence on

135
00:07:42,800 --> 00:07:47,200
Speaker 1: the on behalf of MGM. They're trying to hide behind

136
00:07:47,360 --> 00:07:50,679
Speaker 1: the Safety Act. Joining me is Thomas Russell, a professor

137
00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:53,520
Speaker 1: at the Strum College and of Law at the University

138
00:07:53,600 --> 00:07:58,720
Speaker 1: of Denver, Thomas Many tell us about the law MGM

139
00:07:58,880 --> 00:08:02,320
Speaker 1: is basing its laws Sudan called the Support Anti Terrorism

140
00:08:02,360 --> 00:08:07,560
Speaker 1: by Fostering Technologies Act or the Safety Act. UM. First,

141
00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:09,480
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on, and I do have to

142
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:12,960
Speaker 1: correct you. It's Sturm College of Law and not Strum

143
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:15,040
Speaker 1: and we get that all the time, but I just

144
00:08:15,160 --> 00:08:19,320
Speaker 1: I'm monitor bound to make that correction. UM. So this

145
00:08:19,440 --> 00:08:21,800
Speaker 1: act is an act and that you know, put in

146
00:08:21,880 --> 00:08:26,080
Speaker 1: place by Congress about fifteen years ago. UM. It bears

147
00:08:26,640 --> 00:08:30,880
Speaker 1: sort of elements of anti terrorism and also elements of

148
00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:34,199
Speaker 1: Torque reform and kind of combines both of those together

149
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:40,559
Speaker 1: and makes it more difficult to sue someone who has

150
00:08:40,920 --> 00:08:46,520
Speaker 1: UM hired somebody who's deployed a technology that is supposed

151
00:08:46,559 --> 00:08:50,240
Speaker 1: to be an anti terrorism technology. UM. And so the

152
00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:55,400
Speaker 1: claim UM by MGM is that they should be able

153
00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:59,880
Speaker 1: to shift liability from themselves or more likely from their

154
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:06,439
Speaker 1: insurers to the insurance company for Contemporary Services Corporation, which

155
00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:11,520
Speaker 1: did the security work on the ground below the Mandalais

156
00:09:11,520 --> 00:09:15,120
Speaker 1: Bay Hotel. So this is the first time I believe

157
00:09:15,160 --> 00:09:17,959
Speaker 1: that this law is being used. So there's no pressing

158
00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:20,480
Speaker 1: to follow, but there do seem to be some hurdles,

159
00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:25,400
Speaker 1: one being that perhaps a security company was protected under

160
00:09:25,440 --> 00:09:28,679
Speaker 1: the law, but MGM hasn't gone through the process that

161
00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:33,920
Speaker 1: the firm did to get certification under the Act. Well,

162
00:09:34,440 --> 00:09:37,960
Speaker 1: I actually think that my reading again, as you say,

163
00:09:38,080 --> 00:09:41,800
Speaker 1: it's correct that there hasn't been adjudication under this statute.

164
00:09:41,840 --> 00:09:44,040
Speaker 1: So in fact, we don't really know what it means,

165
00:09:44,120 --> 00:09:46,920
Speaker 1: and it will take some some time before we figure

166
00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:51,040
Speaker 1: that out. Um. My reading of the statute and the

167
00:09:51,040 --> 00:09:56,320
Speaker 1: related regulations are that the company creates a technology which

168
00:09:56,520 --> 00:10:00,440
Speaker 1: can include maybe a service to that is the designed

169
00:10:00,559 --> 00:10:04,439
Speaker 1: to prevent some form of mass attack, and then when

170
00:10:05,520 --> 00:10:09,920
Speaker 1: another entity hires that company, the liability should something go

171
00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:14,880
Speaker 1: wrong shifts to the to the entity providing the technology,

172
00:10:14,920 --> 00:10:18,679
Speaker 1: the anti anti terrorism technology. So there are a set

173
00:10:18,720 --> 00:10:22,520
Speaker 1: of steps of approval through the Department of Homeland Security

174
00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:26,319
Speaker 1: that the that the security company would have gone through. Um,

175
00:10:26,360 --> 00:10:28,880
Speaker 1: it's a little less clear to me exactly what MGM

176
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:32,480
Speaker 1: would have gone through that. An important thing to note

177
00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:34,800
Speaker 1: here is that there's a lot of loss, of course,

178
00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:39,320
Speaker 1: from injuries, death, from emotional harm, everything else. One of

179
00:10:39,440 --> 00:10:43,520
Speaker 1: the things that the statute does is narrows the think

180
00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:46,160
Speaker 1: the amount of money that can be recovered for a

181
00:10:46,240 --> 00:10:50,320
Speaker 1: variety of things. This the act eliminates punitive damages, for example,

182
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:56,040
Speaker 1: it narrows the recovery of economic harm for emotional loss. Um,

183
00:10:56,480 --> 00:11:02,200
Speaker 1: it narrows eliminates something related to health insurance essentially is

184
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:06,520
Speaker 1: what it does. Um. And And at the same time,

185
00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:10,560
Speaker 1: the Act limits the recovery to the total amount of

186
00:11:10,640 --> 00:11:17,920
Speaker 1: insurance that the security contractor has. So it's significant goal. Yeah,

187
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:21,560
Speaker 1: go ahead. So UM, now they're asking for the court

188
00:11:21,640 --> 00:11:26,520
Speaker 1: to declare the company isn't liable at all. Um. Is

189
00:11:26,559 --> 00:11:30,760
Speaker 1: there any problem with the victims claims that MGM was

190
00:11:30,880 --> 00:11:33,720
Speaker 1: negligent and that there were red flags about the shooter

191
00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:36,760
Speaker 1: that the hotel should have picked up on, such as

192
00:11:36,840 --> 00:11:40,520
Speaker 1: piling up weapons in his room where the hotel hired

193
00:11:40,559 --> 00:11:44,600
Speaker 1: the security company for the concert itself. So I'm not

194
00:11:44,720 --> 00:11:49,200
Speaker 1: sure if any of that crosses well. I agree with

195
00:11:49,240 --> 00:11:51,000
Speaker 1: you there, and I'd need to see more of the

196
00:11:51,080 --> 00:11:53,520
Speaker 1: pleadings and some of the lawsuits that were filed and

197
00:11:53,559 --> 00:11:59,280
Speaker 1: then subsequently withdrawn. But to simplify, I can conceive of

198
00:12:00,000 --> 00:12:02,679
Speaker 1: an activity on the ground and there may have been

199
00:12:02,760 --> 00:12:05,440
Speaker 1: negligence in relationship to that and to the music the

200
00:12:05,480 --> 00:12:10,640
Speaker 1: music festival, and then separately negligence in the hotel. And

201
00:12:10,679 --> 00:12:13,960
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it was negligent, but perhaps negligence in

202
00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:17,520
Speaker 1: the hotel in allowing the number of bags to come

203
00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:20,080
Speaker 1: in and that sort of stuff, although frankly, I'm not

204
00:12:20,120 --> 00:12:23,880
Speaker 1: sure I want hotels counting my baggage. So it may

205
00:12:23,920 --> 00:12:27,160
Speaker 1: be that if this act protects MGM, it could be

206
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 1: that it protects him only on the ground, but not

207
00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:33,120
Speaker 1: for what they did in their hotel. Right, MGM does

208
00:12:33,160 --> 00:12:36,080
Speaker 1: own both the festival and the hotel, but they own

209
00:12:36,160 --> 00:12:38,960
Speaker 1: them separately through a through a complicated corporate structure that

210
00:12:38,960 --> 00:12:44,240
Speaker 1: I don't fully comprehend. Okay um, So many critics are

211
00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:50,400
Speaker 1: calling out this lawsuit as outrageous, disgraceful, and worse. Did

212
00:12:50,400 --> 00:12:53,520
Speaker 1: it shock you that MGM would use this legal maneuver

213
00:12:53,640 --> 00:12:59,160
Speaker 1: so to speak? Now, I'm not shocked, and honestly, I

214
00:12:59,200 --> 00:13:03,560
Speaker 1: mean it maybe seems a little premature to seek a

215
00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:07,560
Speaker 1: declaratory judgment. On the other hand, they've got people who

216
00:13:07,640 --> 00:13:09,760
Speaker 1: either filed suit and then withdrew it or said they're

217
00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:13,360
Speaker 1: going to sue them. It makes sense to consolidate these

218
00:13:13,440 --> 00:13:15,800
Speaker 1: somewhere and I think that what is likely is that

219
00:13:15,840 --> 00:13:19,720
Speaker 1: this is all going to be consolidated within one federal

220
00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:23,480
Speaker 1: courthouse somewhere in the United States, and and who knows

221
00:13:23,480 --> 00:13:28,040
Speaker 1: where that will be. Um, you know, it may feel shocking. Um,

222
00:13:28,080 --> 00:13:31,440
Speaker 1: it's a little bit novel, but it's it shouldn't be

223
00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:34,360
Speaker 1: shocking that an entity that faces a lot of liability

224
00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:37,880
Speaker 1: wants to limit that liability and push that liability to

225
00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:41,520
Speaker 1: others if they can do some And MGM spokeswoman said

226
00:13:41,520 --> 00:13:44,120
Speaker 1: the federal court is an appropriate venue in the best

227
00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:47,679
Speaker 1: and fastest way to resolve the cases. Will you explain

228
00:13:47,720 --> 00:13:51,000
Speaker 1: why MGM and most corporations want cases to be tried

229
00:13:51,040 --> 00:13:55,160
Speaker 1: in federal court and plaintiffs and most victims would rather

230
00:13:55,240 --> 00:13:59,280
Speaker 1: have it in state court. Well, I think the simple

231
00:13:59,280 --> 00:14:01,959
Speaker 1: truth of the matter is, and I should add here

232
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:04,600
Speaker 1: to that, I'm a law professor, but also practice law

233
00:14:04,760 --> 00:14:07,960
Speaker 1: on the side of plaineiffs, so that's generally where my

234
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:10,760
Speaker 1: sympathies lie. But in this case, you know, I'm trying

235
00:14:10,800 --> 00:14:12,200
Speaker 1: to give it to you as straight as I can.

236
00:14:12,960 --> 00:14:14,800
Speaker 1: The truth of the matter is, the federal judges in

237
00:14:14,800 --> 00:14:17,160
Speaker 1: our country are the best, are the best judges that

238
00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:19,840
Speaker 1: we have, and the federal courts of the are the

239
00:14:19,880 --> 00:14:24,360
Speaker 1: most efficient and effective courts that we have, and it's

240
00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:28,320
Speaker 1: going to help a party to be able to consolidate

241
00:14:28,640 --> 00:14:32,080
Speaker 1: in one, as I said, in one court or you know,

242
00:14:32,120 --> 00:14:34,600
Speaker 1: one set of courts, rather than to have to litigate

243
00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:37,440
Speaker 1: in a number of different states, between the number of

244
00:14:37,440 --> 00:14:40,960
Speaker 1: different judges in front of whom who are who are

245
00:14:40,960 --> 00:14:45,520
Speaker 1: elected or appointed in a variety of different ways. So um,

246
00:14:45,800 --> 00:14:47,760
Speaker 1: the best judges you can get are in the United

247
00:14:47,800 --> 00:14:50,600
Speaker 1: States District Court. All right, Thanks so much for being

248
00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:53,560
Speaker 1: on the show. That's Thomas Russell. He's a professor at

249
00:14:53,600 --> 00:14:58,000
Speaker 1: the Stern College of Law at the University of Denver.

250
00:14:58,840 --> 00:15:01,600
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Blue Burg Law Podcast. You

251
00:15:01,640 --> 00:15:05,560
Speaker 1: can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

252
00:15:05,640 --> 00:15:09,560
Speaker 1: and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

253
00:15:10,000 --> 00:15:11,320
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg