WEBVTT - Democrats Put Focus on Project 2025

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:15.080
<v Speaker 1>In her first campaign rally as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee,

0:00:15.360 --> 0:00:19.599
<v Speaker 1>Vice President Kamala Harris targeted Donald Trump and what she

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:22.720
<v Speaker 1>called his Extreme Project twenty twenty five.

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:25.840
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump wants to take our country backward.

0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:30.840
<v Speaker 1>He and his Extreme Project twenty twenty five.

0:00:30.680 --> 0:00:35.800
<v Speaker 3>Agenda will weaken the middle class.

0:00:36.320 --> 0:00:38.279
<v Speaker 1>Like we know, we got to take this serious thing.

0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:39.640
<v Speaker 2>Can you believe they put that thing in writing?

0:00:44.600 --> 0:00:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Read it as nine hundred pages.

0:00:48.120 --> 0:00:48.960
<v Speaker 4>But here's the thing.

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:52.199
<v Speaker 2>When you read it, you will see Donald Trump intends

0:00:52.200 --> 0:00:54.240
<v Speaker 2>to cut Social Security and Medicare.

0:00:54.840 --> 0:00:59.400
<v Speaker 1>Project twenty twenty five, the nine hundred page conservative manifesto

0:01:00.200 --> 0:01:04.880
<v Speaker 1>by the right leaning Heritage Foundation, proposes a massive overhaul

0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:09.840
<v Speaker 1>of the federal government, including scrapping climate change rules, stopping

0:01:09.920 --> 0:01:14.839
<v Speaker 1>sales of the abortion pill, lessening worker protections, replacing civil

0:01:14.959 --> 0:01:19.800
<v Speaker 1>servants with Trump loyalists, and dismantling the Education, Commerce, and

0:01:19.880 --> 0:01:24.080
<v Speaker 1>Homeland Security departments. Harris is putting it in the spotlight,

0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:28.720
<v Speaker 1>although Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have been using it

0:01:28.760 --> 0:01:32.240
<v Speaker 1>to showcase the threats to the country if Trump wins

0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:33.200
<v Speaker 1>the White House again.

0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:36.679
<v Speaker 5>It's a blue crid for the second Trump term that

0:01:36.800 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 5>every American should read and understand. Now. Of course Trump

0:01:40.680 --> 0:01:43.240
<v Speaker 5>is lying about him now, he said, tries to this

0:01:43.400 --> 0:01:45.920
<v Speaker 5>is himself, just like he's tried to this himself for

0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:49.560
<v Speaker 5>Overturny Grovy Wade.

0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:51.800
<v Speaker 1>And recent polling shows there's been a dramatic uptick in

0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:55.960
<v Speaker 1>awareness and negative views of Project twenty twenty five since

0:01:56.040 --> 0:02:00.160
<v Speaker 1>late June, when Democrats began emphasizing the plan as it's

0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:03.480
<v Speaker 1>a central plank of their campaign against Trump. Trump has

0:02:03.520 --> 0:02:07.560
<v Speaker 1>tried to distance himself from Project twenty twenty five. The

0:02:07.680 --> 0:02:10.440
<v Speaker 1>critics point out that it was led by former officials

0:02:10.440 --> 0:02:14.040
<v Speaker 1>in his administration. Joining me is Bloomberg Lobbying and legal

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:18.200
<v Speaker 1>affairs reporter Emily Burnbaum. Emily tell us the point of

0:02:18.360 --> 0:02:21.720
<v Speaker 1>Project twenty twenty five what it's aimed at.

0:02:21.919 --> 0:02:26.000
<v Speaker 2>So, this is an effort spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation,

0:02:26.200 --> 0:02:29.119
<v Speaker 2>which is a right leaning think tank in Washington. They

0:02:29.240 --> 0:02:31.920
<v Speaker 2>brought together over one hundred conservative groups to create a

0:02:31.960 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 2>playbook for a second Trump administration. It lays out a

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:39.440
<v Speaker 2>very expansive vision for how to push a far right

0:02:39.480 --> 0:02:44.560
<v Speaker 2>agenda through every federal agency. Essentially, you know some of

0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:48.640
<v Speaker 2>The proposals that have gotten the most attention include using

0:02:48.680 --> 0:02:52.519
<v Speaker 2>power of the federal government to ban abortion, dismantling the

0:02:52.560 --> 0:02:57.839
<v Speaker 2>Department of Education, banning pornography. So there's a ton in there,

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:02.880
<v Speaker 2>and the thrust of it is in visioning a truly conservative government.

0:03:03.560 --> 0:03:07.600
<v Speaker 1>Trump has said his campaign isn't affiliated with Project twenty

0:03:07.639 --> 0:03:11.360
<v Speaker 1>twenty five, but there are connections there, definitely.

0:03:11.600 --> 0:03:16.079
<v Speaker 2>So there have been tallies showing that over one hundred

0:03:16.120 --> 0:03:20.120
<v Speaker 2>and forty people associated with Project twenty twenty five served

0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:24.639
<v Speaker 2>in the Trump administration. It's led by former Trump administration officials.

0:03:24.960 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 2>A lot of the proposals in the plan itself echo

0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:35.280
<v Speaker 2>Trump campaign promises. So the connections are undeniable and they're

0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:39.280
<v Speaker 2>increasingly difficult to shake as Democrats keep hammering on this.

0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:42.920
<v Speaker 2>You know, Trump tied to Project twenty twenty five. Trump

0:03:43.040 --> 0:03:45.119
<v Speaker 2>tied to the Project twenty twenty five ideas.

0:03:45.320 --> 0:03:47.120
<v Speaker 4>So this has been out for a while.

0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:51.120
<v Speaker 1>Why suddenly is it coming, you know, into focus for

0:03:51.200 --> 0:03:51.760
<v Speaker 1>the public.

0:03:52.800 --> 0:03:58.320
<v Speaker 2>Democrats have really leaned into this messaging around Project twenty

0:03:58.320 --> 0:04:01.960
<v Speaker 2>twenty five. You know, they're using it as a way

0:04:02.200 --> 0:04:05.800
<v Speaker 2>to say, here's what the world will look like if

0:04:05.800 --> 0:04:09.240
<v Speaker 2>Trump is re elected. You know, sort of to scare people.

0:04:10.240 --> 0:04:13.400
<v Speaker 2>And also it was brought into the news just a

0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:16.839
<v Speaker 2>couple of weeks ago because the head of the Heritage Foundation,

0:04:17.000 --> 0:04:21.520
<v Speaker 2>Kevin Roberts, said that we are in the process of

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:25.640
<v Speaker 2>carrying out a second American Revolution to take back power

0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:28.640
<v Speaker 2>from the elite, and he said it'll be bloodless as

0:04:28.680 --> 0:04:30.800
<v Speaker 2>long as the left allowed it to be. So that

0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:33.559
<v Speaker 2>was really scary rhetoric, and I think that created another

0:04:33.600 --> 0:04:37.320
<v Speaker 2>opportunity for Democrats to point to this as a boogeyman.

0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:41.080
<v Speaker 1>And here's a clip of that Robert's statement, in.

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:43.560
<v Speaker 6>Spite of all this nonsense from the left, we are

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:46.240
<v Speaker 6>going to win. We're in the process of taking this

0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 6>country back, and we are in the process of the

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:52.800
<v Speaker 6>Second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows.

0:04:52.480 --> 0:04:52.760
<v Speaker 3>It to be.

0:04:53.560 --> 0:04:57.520
<v Speaker 1>Do you think that Roberts and conservatives like him want

0:04:57.560 --> 0:04:59.760
<v Speaker 1>to get attention for this, even if it's negative A.

0:05:01.160 --> 0:05:03.880
<v Speaker 2>I think so. I think that they've been a little

0:05:03.880 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 2>frustrated by how much they've been tied to Trump. You know,

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.680
<v Speaker 2>the Trump campaign has continually pushed back. They say, we

0:05:11.720 --> 0:05:15.040
<v Speaker 2>don't know these people. That doesn't make them look great.

0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:19.200
<v Speaker 2>But I do think that they are standing by everything

0:05:19.360 --> 0:05:21.840
<v Speaker 2>in the plan. You know, they're proud that they brought

0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:24.560
<v Speaker 2>together so many conservatives to come up with an agenda.

0:05:24.920 --> 0:05:27.240
<v Speaker 2>You know, when Trump came into power last time, one

0:05:27.240 --> 0:05:30.279
<v Speaker 2>of the issues was that they didn't really know how

0:05:30.279 --> 0:05:34.960
<v Speaker 2>to wield power effectively. They had some policy ideas you

0:05:35.000 --> 0:05:38.240
<v Speaker 2>know about immigration, et cetera, but they didn't know how

0:05:38.279 --> 0:05:40.560
<v Speaker 2>to use the government to make that happen. So this

0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:42.960
<v Speaker 2>is an effort to fill in that vacuum. So I

0:05:43.000 --> 0:05:46.200
<v Speaker 2>think the more attention is on the plan, you know,

0:05:46.240 --> 0:05:47.839
<v Speaker 2>the more they're getting out their message.

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:49.800
<v Speaker 1>If they didn't want to be tied to Trump, then

0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:52.640
<v Speaker 1>why did they have so many people who were in

0:05:52.720 --> 0:05:55.080
<v Speaker 1>the Trump administration writing these things.

0:05:55.839 --> 0:05:56.440
<v Speaker 3>It's a good.

0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:58.960
<v Speaker 2>Question, and they say, you know, this playbook could be

0:05:59.040 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 2>used by any few Republican administration. I think they want

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:07.640
<v Speaker 2>to create some daylight because they want to differentiate between

0:06:08.120 --> 0:06:12.040
<v Speaker 2>the conservative movement and the Trump campaign. You know, conservative

0:06:12.080 --> 0:06:17.960
<v Speaker 2>movement has a broader vision, has more long term momentum

0:06:18.000 --> 0:06:19.920
<v Speaker 2>than just the next four years.

0:06:20.320 --> 0:06:24.040
<v Speaker 1>Project twenty twenty five proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy,

0:06:24.240 --> 0:06:28.400
<v Speaker 1>including independent agencies like the Department of Justice, be placed

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:32.400
<v Speaker 1>under direct presidential control and In the nine hundred pages,

0:06:32.480 --> 0:06:35.960
<v Speaker 1>they take each of the departments and give suggestions about

0:06:36.040 --> 0:06:38.560
<v Speaker 1>what should be done. So let's start with the Department

0:06:38.560 --> 0:06:41.400
<v Speaker 1>of Labor. The section was written by Jonathan Berry, who

0:06:41.440 --> 0:06:45.599
<v Speaker 1>headed the regulatory office at Trump's Labor department. What's the

0:06:45.640 --> 0:06:49.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of message here, anti working class, anti unions.

0:06:50.560 --> 0:06:55.800
<v Speaker 2>Yes, it's definitely very anti union, pro employer. And that's

0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:59.760
<v Speaker 2>according to labor experts who I talk to. A lot

0:06:59.800 --> 0:07:05.000
<v Speaker 2>of the proposals would just make life easier for companies, so,

0:07:05.320 --> 0:07:07.960
<v Speaker 2>you know, it would make it harder to create unions.

0:07:08.320 --> 0:07:11.640
<v Speaker 2>It would allow them to avoid paying over time. It

0:07:11.680 --> 0:07:16.880
<v Speaker 2>would even allow miners to take on some potentially dangerous

0:07:16.960 --> 0:07:20.040
<v Speaker 2>work as long as their parents that it was okay.

0:07:20.440 --> 0:07:24.600
<v Speaker 2>So it lays out a pretty pro employer visions under

0:07:25.440 --> 0:07:26.520
<v Speaker 2>Republican administration.

0:07:26.800 --> 0:07:30.160
<v Speaker 1>I thought that was so odd to let miners take

0:07:30.200 --> 0:07:31.200
<v Speaker 1>on dangerous work.

0:07:31.280 --> 0:07:32.240
<v Speaker 4>What is that about.

0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:36.520
<v Speaker 2>That's an increasingly popular position among Republicans. You know, a

0:07:36.560 --> 0:07:40.040
<v Speaker 2>lot of this comes down to the administrative state. You know,

0:07:40.120 --> 0:07:46.720
<v Speaker 2>there's this frustration among conservatives that Democrats have effectively taken

0:07:46.800 --> 0:07:50.960
<v Speaker 2>over the government bureaucracy. They're imposing all these rules to

0:07:51.000 --> 0:07:53.760
<v Speaker 2>push their vision of society. You know, and so this

0:07:53.880 --> 0:07:56.960
<v Speaker 2>is their respond to that, and I think that, you know,

0:07:57.120 --> 0:07:59.240
<v Speaker 2>this is just a small piece.

0:07:59.120 --> 0:08:04.640
<v Speaker 1>Of that, and apparently wanting to undo labor laws that

0:08:04.680 --> 0:08:08.200
<v Speaker 1>protect children. I thought it was strange that he denied

0:08:08.240 --> 0:08:11.600
<v Speaker 1>in an email that Corporate America backs all of his proposals,

0:08:11.960 --> 0:08:15.960
<v Speaker 1>pointing out he favors phasing out temporary guest work of visas,

0:08:16.240 --> 0:08:20.080
<v Speaker 1>eliminating use of forced labor abroad, and giving workers time

0:08:20.120 --> 0:08:24.320
<v Speaker 1>off for Sabbath observance. Those particular things seem so odd

0:08:24.360 --> 0:08:25.280
<v Speaker 1>to single.

0:08:24.880 --> 0:08:25.360
<v Speaker 4>Out to me.

0:08:26.360 --> 0:08:28.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean, you know, there's a lot of wonky

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:32.320
<v Speaker 2>policy proposals in there. But you know, Jonathan Barry himself,

0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:35.440
<v Speaker 2>he worked at Trump's labor department, like you said, then

0:08:35.559 --> 0:08:39.839
<v Speaker 2>he revolved out to a corporate law firm called Boyden Gray.

0:08:40.240 --> 0:08:43.440
<v Speaker 2>They take on a lot of conservative cases. Now he's

0:08:43.480 --> 0:08:46.800
<v Speaker 2>representing companies, including a coalition of home care companies that

0:08:46.800 --> 0:08:50.360
<v Speaker 2>are accused of feeling to pay over time. You know,

0:08:50.480 --> 0:08:52.800
<v Speaker 2>he's plotting how to get back in the administration. I

0:08:52.800 --> 0:08:56.960
<v Speaker 2>think it's a very Washington story. You know, the pro

0:08:57.080 --> 0:09:00.680
<v Speaker 2>corporate agenda in government outside government, and then back in government.

0:09:01.600 --> 0:09:04.680
<v Speaker 1>Then you have the Department of Energy and This was

0:09:04.720 --> 0:09:08.680
<v Speaker 1>written by Bernard mcnamie, a Trump appointee of the Federal

0:09:08.800 --> 0:09:12.040
<v Speaker 1>Energy Regulatory Commission. What are they looking to do with

0:09:12.080 --> 0:09:13.080
<v Speaker 1>the Energy Department?

0:09:13.400 --> 0:09:17.800
<v Speaker 2>Among other proposals, they should eliminate offices that work on

0:09:18.000 --> 0:09:19.600
<v Speaker 2>net zero carbon goals.

0:09:19.880 --> 0:09:20.160
<v Speaker 4>You know.

0:09:20.400 --> 0:09:24.960
<v Speaker 2>They basically say the Biden administration has moved too fast

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 2>with green policies. They're trying to accelerate the energy transition

0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:33.480
<v Speaker 2>too quickly. So he's calling for an end to the

0:09:33.520 --> 0:09:37.679
<v Speaker 2>so called war on oil and natural gas, trying to

0:09:37.720 --> 0:09:42.440
<v Speaker 2>pull back a lot of government efforts to fight climate change,

0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:45.120
<v Speaker 2>you know, create a much more oil and gas friendly

0:09:45.400 --> 0:09:46.120
<v Speaker 2>energy department.

0:09:46.720 --> 0:09:48.080
<v Speaker 4>The Department of Transportation.

0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:50.959
<v Speaker 1>Note was written by Diana I don't know if I'm

0:09:50.960 --> 0:09:51.960
<v Speaker 1>pronouncing this correctly.

0:09:52.160 --> 0:09:54.400
<v Speaker 4>Firch got Roth, a deputy.

0:09:54.040 --> 0:09:57.840
<v Speaker 1>Assistant director in Trump's Transportation Department. I just want to

0:09:57.840 --> 0:10:00.880
<v Speaker 1>note that so far all of the authors has worked

0:10:00.880 --> 0:10:04.080
<v Speaker 1>in the Trump administration. Tell us about her proposals.

0:10:04.760 --> 0:10:09.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, so the main message is that the Biden administration

0:10:10.120 --> 0:10:13.960
<v Speaker 2>has moved too fast on electric vehicles, that they are

0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:19.760
<v Speaker 2>subsidizing EV producers like Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers.

0:10:19.920 --> 0:10:23.719
<v Speaker 2>So a lot of her positions align with the positions

0:10:23.720 --> 0:10:26.480
<v Speaker 2>of you know, Ford and other automakers.

0:10:27.000 --> 0:10:29.959
<v Speaker 1>So how would Elon Musk, who's already given fifty million

0:10:30.040 --> 0:10:32.760
<v Speaker 1>dollars to a Trump back, how would you.

0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:33.679
<v Speaker 4>React to this?

0:10:34.559 --> 0:10:38.040
<v Speaker 2>I think Elon Musk definitely wouldn't be happy with a

0:10:38.040 --> 0:10:40.480
<v Speaker 2>lot of the proposals in this chapter. But I think

0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:43.560
<v Speaker 2>part of his play is getting close to Trump in

0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:47.880
<v Speaker 2>order to push his agenda to the Republican administration. So

0:10:47.920 --> 0:10:50.080
<v Speaker 2>something a lot of people say about Trump is his

0:10:50.400 --> 0:10:53.840
<v Speaker 2>opinion is informed by whoever he talked to last. So

0:10:54.400 --> 0:10:57.520
<v Speaker 2>for Elon Musk, it's the very strategic play to get

0:10:57.559 --> 0:10:59.199
<v Speaker 2>really close to him.

0:11:00.360 --> 0:11:05.000
<v Speaker 1>The EPA chapter in Project twenty twenty five was written

0:11:05.040 --> 0:11:08.560
<v Speaker 1>by the former chief of staff for Trump's EPA administrator.

0:11:08.880 --> 0:11:11.120
<v Speaker 1>We can sort of imagine what it is, but tell

0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:13.199
<v Speaker 1>us a little more so her.

0:11:13.200 --> 0:11:16.360
<v Speaker 2>Vision of the EPA. They would cut a lot of offices,

0:11:16.480 --> 0:11:19.000
<v Speaker 2>so in general, it's a lot about shrinking the EPA,

0:11:19.120 --> 0:11:23.320
<v Speaker 2>which she says is bloated and bureaucratic, especially cutting offices

0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:27.720
<v Speaker 2>dedicated to climate protection. It would expand oil and gas leases.

0:11:28.480 --> 0:11:32.679
<v Speaker 2>It would shrink the workforce, so it would also halt

0:11:32.760 --> 0:11:36.959
<v Speaker 2>grants to advocacy groups, so it would disentangle itself from

0:11:36.960 --> 0:11:39.680
<v Speaker 2>a lot of the you know, pro climate groups that

0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:43.160
<v Speaker 2>are operating on the ground. So it would it would

0:11:43.240 --> 0:11:47.360
<v Speaker 2>really make the EPA much less effective as an agency.

0:11:47.559 --> 0:11:51.320
<v Speaker 1>Which Trump also did during his presidency. Now, the Department

0:11:51.400 --> 0:11:55.640
<v Speaker 1>of Justice chapter was written by Gene Hamilton, who served

0:11:55.640 --> 0:11:59.560
<v Speaker 1>as counselor to the AGE during the Trump administration. Here

0:11:59.600 --> 0:12:03.520
<v Speaker 1>a lot of of sort of endorsement of conspiracy theories

0:12:03.559 --> 0:12:06.719
<v Speaker 1>that we've been hearing, you know, since the Trump administration.

0:12:07.520 --> 0:12:10.400
<v Speaker 1>I want to read a quote from that chapter. Quote,

0:12:10.559 --> 0:12:13.560
<v Speaker 1>large swaths of the Department have been captured by an

0:12:13.640 --> 0:12:19.920
<v Speaker 1>unaccountable bureaucratic menagerial class and radical left ideologues who have

0:12:20.000 --> 0:12:23.239
<v Speaker 1>embedded themselves throughout its offices and components.

0:12:24.120 --> 0:12:27.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, a lot of this chapter is focused on, you know,

0:12:27.960 --> 0:12:32.719
<v Speaker 2>this anxiety that the dj has been captured by what

0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:35.600
<v Speaker 2>he calls the radical left, you know, pointing to the

0:12:35.800 --> 0:12:40.280
<v Speaker 2>FBI bringing back up some of the concerns around Hunter

0:12:40.360 --> 0:12:45.320
<v Speaker 2>Biden's laptop. So it really lays out a plan to

0:12:45.480 --> 0:12:49.560
<v Speaker 2>ensure that conservatives are calling the shots at the Justice Department.

0:12:50.559 --> 0:12:53.360
<v Speaker 2>It you know, envisions pivoting away from a focus on

0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:59.560
<v Speaker 2>domestic terrorism, rejecting federal probes of police abuse. It calls

0:12:59.559 --> 0:13:03.360
<v Speaker 2>for actor duty military personnel and National guardsmen at the border,

0:13:03.720 --> 0:13:07.400
<v Speaker 2>so kind of totally revamping the DJ turning away from

0:13:07.480 --> 0:13:11.640
<v Speaker 2>civil rights, turning towards violent crime. That's the gist of

0:13:11.679 --> 0:13:12.439
<v Speaker 2>that chapter.

0:13:12.520 --> 0:13:15.360
<v Speaker 1>And the chapter on the White House by a former

0:13:15.400 --> 0:13:19.160
<v Speaker 1>Trump Deputy Chief of Staff. Of course, wokism has got

0:13:19.200 --> 0:13:20.319
<v Speaker 1>to be in this somewhere.

0:13:20.920 --> 0:13:24.040
<v Speaker 2>Focism is basically in every chapter, and it's especially in

0:13:24.080 --> 0:13:26.280
<v Speaker 2>this chapter, which is one of the first. So it's

0:13:26.280 --> 0:13:32.040
<v Speaker 2>about combating wokeism. It's about, you know, creating better connections

0:13:32.160 --> 0:13:36.600
<v Speaker 2>with conservative media, you know, how to use the media

0:13:36.880 --> 0:13:40.440
<v Speaker 2>to promote the president's agenda. And it focuses a lot

0:13:40.480 --> 0:13:43.760
<v Speaker 2>on pushing back on what he says is the less

0:13:43.840 --> 0:13:49.120
<v Speaker 2>aggressive attacks on life and religious liberty. So Rick Dearborn,

0:13:49.679 --> 0:13:52.239
<v Speaker 2>you know, he's a lobbyist for a lot of companies,

0:13:52.520 --> 0:13:56.600
<v Speaker 2>a lot of well known companies, you know, City Group, Rizon, Meta, Amazon,

0:13:57.040 --> 0:14:00.679
<v Speaker 2>and he is calling for a White House that is,

0:14:01.280 --> 0:14:04.280
<v Speaker 2>you know, corporate friendly and anti woke.

0:14:04.880 --> 0:14:08.160
<v Speaker 1>I think most people haven't read through this whole nine

0:14:08.240 --> 0:14:12.400
<v Speaker 1>hundred pages and just know about the bullet points. Do

0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:15.280
<v Speaker 1>you know how many of these they've distributed or sent

0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:15.920
<v Speaker 1>to people.

0:14:17.200 --> 0:14:20.560
<v Speaker 2>They're definitely trying to get this out across Washington, you know,

0:14:20.680 --> 0:14:24.000
<v Speaker 2>like Project twenty twenty five is more than just a playbook.

0:14:24.040 --> 0:14:24.280
<v Speaker 4>Two.

0:14:24.360 --> 0:14:28.560
<v Speaker 2>They're also soliciting resumes for conservatives who want to serve

0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:31.960
<v Speaker 2>in a Trump administration. They're doing trainings about how to

0:14:32.400 --> 0:14:35.040
<v Speaker 2>use the levers of government to push a conservative agenda.

0:14:35.920 --> 0:14:40.440
<v Speaker 2>So they're trying their best to push this across the

0:14:40.480 --> 0:14:45.560
<v Speaker 2>conservative movement. Interestingly, there have been a few conservative groups

0:14:45.560 --> 0:14:48.320
<v Speaker 2>that were associated with it at the beginning that have

0:14:49.040 --> 0:14:54.120
<v Speaker 2>distanced themselves as it becomes more controversial. So we'll see,

0:14:54.320 --> 0:14:57.040
<v Speaker 2>you know over the next month how many conservative groups

0:14:57.040 --> 0:14:59.800
<v Speaker 2>are left standing as supporters of this agenda.

0:15:00.680 --> 0:15:02.760
<v Speaker 1>Looks like the Democrats are not going to let it

0:15:02.800 --> 0:15:06.840
<v Speaker 1>go easily. Thanks so much, Emily. That's Bloomberg Lobbying and

0:15:06.920 --> 0:15:10.880
<v Speaker 1>legal affairs reporter Emily Burnbaum turning out a corporate law

0:15:10.880 --> 0:15:14.520
<v Speaker 1>in the Delaware courts. The Delaware judge whose landmark ruling

0:15:14.560 --> 0:15:17.320
<v Speaker 1>on shareholder agreements landed him at the center of a

0:15:17.400 --> 0:15:21.320
<v Speaker 1>month's long legal drama, issued a novel decision yesterday in

0:15:21.360 --> 0:15:26.000
<v Speaker 1>a dispute involving a Morgan Stanley subsidiary Vice Chancellor Jay

0:15:26.120 --> 0:15:30.960
<v Speaker 1>Travis Laster handed six billion dollars to XRI Investment Holdings,

0:15:31.280 --> 0:15:34.920
<v Speaker 1>ruling again for the water recycling company, two years after

0:15:34.960 --> 0:15:38.400
<v Speaker 1>he took the rare step of asking Delaware's top court

0:15:38.640 --> 0:15:42.200
<v Speaker 1>to overturn his decision in the company's favor. Joining me

0:15:42.240 --> 0:15:45.360
<v Speaker 1>to sort all this out is business law professor Eric

0:15:45.440 --> 0:15:49.440
<v Speaker 1>Tally of Columbia Law School. Eric, this is a very

0:15:49.480 --> 0:15:51.479
<v Speaker 1>confusing set of facts.

0:15:51.600 --> 0:15:52.680
<v Speaker 4>Can you walk.

0:15:52.520 --> 0:15:53.040
<v Speaker 1>Us through it?

0:15:53.640 --> 0:15:56.640
<v Speaker 3>Yes. The case itself was kind of an interesting case

0:15:56.720 --> 0:16:00.160
<v Speaker 3>because it involved, you know, setting up various type of

0:16:00.320 --> 0:16:05.200
<v Speaker 3>business structures to try to create what essentially amounted to

0:16:05.280 --> 0:16:09.200
<v Speaker 3>kind of like a second mortgage or a subordinated loan,

0:16:09.320 --> 0:16:13.240
<v Speaker 3>and so there were all kinds of constraints in doing it.

0:16:13.280 --> 0:16:16.840
<v Speaker 3>But the person that was trying to basically use stock

0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:20.480
<v Speaker 3>that he had in a company called XRI. He had

0:16:20.520 --> 0:16:24.920
<v Speaker 3>some stock in this company and he wanted to you know,

0:16:25.280 --> 0:16:29.440
<v Speaker 3>basically borrow money for another company to try to turn

0:16:29.520 --> 0:16:33.520
<v Speaker 3>that company into a more profitable venture. But the problem

0:16:33.800 --> 0:16:37.760
<v Speaker 3>was that he had already entered into this agreement not

0:16:38.000 --> 0:16:41.840
<v Speaker 3>to use the stock that he owned as direct collateral.

0:16:41.920 --> 0:16:45.080
<v Speaker 3>He couldn't, you know, do what's called getting secured loan

0:16:45.160 --> 0:16:48.920
<v Speaker 3>secured against that because the company he owned a stock

0:16:48.960 --> 0:16:51.600
<v Speaker 3>and had lent him money as well, and they basically

0:16:51.880 --> 0:16:53.440
<v Speaker 3>were saying, look, if you don't pay it back, we're

0:16:53.440 --> 0:16:55.480
<v Speaker 3>going to use that stock as the collateral for our

0:16:55.520 --> 0:16:58.920
<v Speaker 3>first loan. He ended up working with his own lawyer,

0:16:59.280 --> 0:17:01.720
<v Speaker 3>but then also worked with like the CEO of the

0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:04.440
<v Speaker 3>company that he owned stock in, to try to set

0:17:04.520 --> 0:17:09.560
<v Speaker 3>up a way to structure things so that he could

0:17:09.640 --> 0:17:14.719
<v Speaker 3>still kind of borrow more money against the value of

0:17:14.760 --> 0:17:17.159
<v Speaker 3>these these shares that he owned, but not to step

0:17:17.200 --> 0:17:20.879
<v Speaker 3>on the toes of the company that already had that

0:17:21.000 --> 0:17:24.119
<v Speaker 3>claim on those shares as collateral. So it was a

0:17:24.200 --> 0:17:26.959
<v Speaker 3>little bit complicated because there are all kinds of balls

0:17:26.960 --> 0:17:30.400
<v Speaker 3>in the air at the same time. But even though

0:17:30.440 --> 0:17:33.880
<v Speaker 3>it was really complicated, it was also true that he,

0:17:34.200 --> 0:17:37.000
<v Speaker 3>you know, had been working kind of hand in glove

0:17:37.680 --> 0:17:40.600
<v Speaker 3>with the CEO of the company he owned stock in

0:17:41.119 --> 0:17:43.720
<v Speaker 3>to try to you know, design this thing. And this

0:17:43.920 --> 0:17:46.000
<v Speaker 3>was an old friend of his as well. And so

0:17:46.440 --> 0:17:50.359
<v Speaker 3>you know where things ended up getting is things didn't

0:17:50.400 --> 0:17:53.960
<v Speaker 3>go particularly well for this new business that he was

0:17:53.960 --> 0:17:57.480
<v Speaker 3>trying to create. He wasn't able to make payments on

0:17:57.600 --> 0:18:03.400
<v Speaker 3>his various loans, including that original one, and only then

0:18:03.600 --> 0:18:08.040
<v Speaker 3>when relationships began to sour, did the guy that he

0:18:08.119 --> 0:18:11.760
<v Speaker 3>was working with, the CEO, basically blow the whistle and say, oh,

0:18:11.840 --> 0:18:16.320
<v Speaker 3>he set up this elaborate scheme and violated some of

0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:21.639
<v Speaker 3>the contractual restrictions that he had agreed to long ago

0:18:21.760 --> 0:18:25.480
<v Speaker 3>when he borrowed that first amount secured against the stock.

0:18:25.640 --> 0:18:27.760
<v Speaker 3>So it was a you know, a kind of a

0:18:27.800 --> 0:18:32.399
<v Speaker 3>big Rube Goldberg machine that absolutely this person had built,

0:18:32.560 --> 0:18:36.560
<v Speaker 3>but he kind of was working with someone that was

0:18:36.600 --> 0:18:39.439
<v Speaker 3>the CEO of the other side that would make a

0:18:39.480 --> 0:18:43.119
<v Speaker 3>complaint about it, and they never really sort of voiced

0:18:43.119 --> 0:18:46.120
<v Speaker 3>their own concerns until it was really really late in

0:18:46.400 --> 0:18:48.440
<v Speaker 3>the game, and then they did.

0:18:49.320 --> 0:18:52.560
<v Speaker 1>So that was the case that Laster got tell us

0:18:52.600 --> 0:18:52.840
<v Speaker 1>what he.

0:18:52.800 --> 0:18:53.320
<v Speaker 4>Did with it.

0:18:53.640 --> 0:18:56.560
<v Speaker 3>He had to deal with what was kind of an

0:18:56.560 --> 0:18:59.439
<v Speaker 3>odd situation in that, you know, when you sort of

0:18:59.520 --> 0:19:03.920
<v Speaker 3>look at the from sixty thousand feet, you know this guy, yes,

0:19:04.000 --> 0:19:08.159
<v Speaker 3>he probably built a Rube Goldberg machine that violated some

0:19:08.240 --> 0:19:10.560
<v Speaker 3>of the terms in the deal that he had struck,

0:19:10.720 --> 0:19:12.639
<v Speaker 3>but by the same token to the other side, at

0:19:12.720 --> 0:19:15.040
<v Speaker 3>least the CEO the other side knew what he was

0:19:15.080 --> 0:19:18.960
<v Speaker 3>doing and they didn't object to it until things really

0:19:19.359 --> 0:19:23.680
<v Speaker 3>went south. And that's what Vice Chancellor Laster in his opinion,

0:19:24.040 --> 0:19:27.000
<v Speaker 3>he wanted to sort of recognize this fact that you know,

0:19:27.040 --> 0:19:29.159
<v Speaker 3>they kind of acquiesced in what he was up to,

0:19:29.400 --> 0:19:32.880
<v Speaker 3>but the way that the law works didn't give him

0:19:32.920 --> 0:19:36.919
<v Speaker 3>the ability to use this, this idea that you know

0:19:36.960 --> 0:19:39.480
<v Speaker 3>they were in on it, and therefore they shouldn't be

0:19:39.520 --> 0:19:43.439
<v Speaker 3>able to just foreclose and seize the shares away. So

0:19:43.800 --> 0:19:47.480
<v Speaker 3>when he wrote that opinion, that first opinion, he almost

0:19:47.800 --> 0:19:51.760
<v Speaker 3>asked the Delaware Supreme Court please overruled me on this,

0:19:52.240 --> 0:19:55.520
<v Speaker 3>because I kind of don't like the outcome that I

0:19:55.560 --> 0:19:58.320
<v Speaker 3>got to here, but it seems to be the outcome

0:19:58.440 --> 0:20:03.000
<v Speaker 3>that our precedents have suggested for this case. And so

0:20:03.119 --> 0:20:06.520
<v Speaker 3>then goes to the Delaware Supreme Court and they come

0:20:06.560 --> 0:20:09.000
<v Speaker 3>back and said, no, by Standsley last year, you got

0:20:09.040 --> 0:20:12.800
<v Speaker 3>it exactly right. We're not going to overrule you. The

0:20:12.880 --> 0:20:17.160
<v Speaker 3>fact that you know that you know this guy had

0:20:17.280 --> 0:20:21.240
<v Speaker 3>done something that was not allowed in his original loan,

0:20:21.680 --> 0:20:25.119
<v Speaker 3>even if he was helped by this CEO, does not

0:20:25.960 --> 0:20:30.359
<v Speaker 3>does not foreclose the conclusion that this was something that

0:20:30.400 --> 0:20:33.640
<v Speaker 3>was in violation of his loan, And from the very

0:20:33.680 --> 0:20:36.280
<v Speaker 3>moment he did it, it was void and they could

0:20:36.359 --> 0:20:40.600
<v Speaker 3>just seize the shares back from him. So this this gentleman,

0:20:40.640 --> 0:20:43.320
<v Speaker 3>mister Hollyfield, really kind of took at the chops from

0:20:43.480 --> 0:20:48.960
<v Speaker 3>multiple directions, and by Standley Laster you kind of get

0:20:48.960 --> 0:20:50.919
<v Speaker 3>the sense he sort of felt for the guy, but

0:20:51.440 --> 0:20:54.440
<v Speaker 3>didn't see the law on the books to give him

0:20:54.560 --> 0:20:57.760
<v Speaker 3>much relief. In the Delaware Supreme Court wasn't willing to

0:20:57.920 --> 0:20:58.680
<v Speaker 3>go there either.

0:20:58.920 --> 0:21:02.240
<v Speaker 1>Have you ever heard of a judge sort of asking to.

0:21:02.200 --> 0:21:06.720
<v Speaker 3>Be reversed, Well, it's not as unusual as you might

0:21:06.760 --> 0:21:08.520
<v Speaker 3>think it would be, because I think a lot of

0:21:08.560 --> 0:21:10.639
<v Speaker 3>times when judges sort of say, look, the law is

0:21:10.680 --> 0:21:14.359
<v Speaker 3>clear on this, this seems somewhat inequitable, and it would

0:21:14.400 --> 0:21:17.080
<v Speaker 3>be a good idea if someone at a higher level,

0:21:17.119 --> 0:21:21.200
<v Speaker 3>whether it's a legislature or a supreme court, would sort of,

0:21:21.240 --> 0:21:23.280
<v Speaker 3>you basically say we're going to do things differently, either

0:21:23.280 --> 0:21:26.760
<v Speaker 3>with a new statute or by overruling an existing precedent.

0:21:26.880 --> 0:21:29.720
<v Speaker 3>So a lot of times this is not a completely

0:21:29.760 --> 0:21:32.600
<v Speaker 3>surprising thing for a trial court judge to say, look,

0:21:32.840 --> 0:21:35.199
<v Speaker 3>I'm bound by the precedents that have been handed to

0:21:35.280 --> 0:21:38.440
<v Speaker 3>me by, among other folks, the Supreme Court of Delaware.

0:21:38.720 --> 0:21:40.960
<v Speaker 3>I've got to live within them. I think that leads

0:21:41.000 --> 0:21:43.399
<v Speaker 3>me to kind of an outcome that seems kind of

0:21:43.480 --> 0:21:46.240
<v Speaker 3>unfair here, and I want to signal to the Supreme Court,

0:21:46.800 --> 0:21:49.359
<v Speaker 3>don't worry, I won't take it personally if you reverse

0:21:49.440 --> 0:21:52.479
<v Speaker 3>me here, and in fact I invite you to consider

0:21:52.640 --> 0:21:56.520
<v Speaker 3>doing so. What was sort of interesting, particularly in this instance,

0:21:56.600 --> 0:21:59.760
<v Speaker 3>is that while by chances the last probably does get

0:22:00.480 --> 0:22:05.359
<v Speaker 3>reversed more than the average judge for reasons largely having

0:22:05.400 --> 0:22:07.880
<v Speaker 3>to do with his creativity, this is a situation where

0:22:07.880 --> 0:22:10.919
<v Speaker 3>they chose not to reverse him and basically sort of

0:22:11.160 --> 0:22:13.960
<v Speaker 3>continued the outcome that he got to that he felt

0:22:14.040 --> 0:22:17.200
<v Speaker 3>uncomfortable with, but the Supreme Court of Delaware evidently felt

0:22:17.200 --> 0:22:18.119
<v Speaker 3>more comfortable with it.

0:22:18.480 --> 0:22:21.040
<v Speaker 1>Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue

0:22:21.040 --> 0:22:24.960
<v Speaker 1>this conversation with Columbia Law School professor Eric Tally, and

0:22:25.000 --> 0:22:29.320
<v Speaker 1>we'll talk about that landmark ruling on shareholder agreements that

0:22:29.520 --> 0:22:33.400
<v Speaker 1>landed Judge Laster at the center of a month's long

0:22:33.520 --> 0:22:37.119
<v Speaker 1>legal drama and led to the Delaware legislature taking action.

0:22:37.480 --> 0:22:40.199
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. I've been

0:22:40.240 --> 0:22:43.760
<v Speaker 1>talking to business law professor Eric Tally of Columbia Law School.

0:22:44.320 --> 0:22:47.639
<v Speaker 1>What's with the length of these opinions? One with his

0:22:47.800 --> 0:22:50.560
<v Speaker 1>was one hundred and fifty four pages. The Delaware Supreme

0:22:50.600 --> 0:22:53.639
<v Speaker 1>Court came back with a seventy eight page opinion.

0:22:54.960 --> 0:22:58.080
<v Speaker 3>Delaware Chancer Court opinions tend to be a little bit

0:22:58.160 --> 0:23:01.680
<v Speaker 3>longer than others. I think this is in large part

0:23:01.680 --> 0:23:05.359
<v Speaker 3>because they realize that people are watching right, that this

0:23:05.520 --> 0:23:10.400
<v Speaker 3>is a transaction that has caused a dispute. But regardless

0:23:10.400 --> 0:23:12.760
<v Speaker 3>of the holding that they have, there may be fifty

0:23:12.880 --> 0:23:17.440
<v Speaker 3>sixty two thousand other future transactions that may be designed

0:23:17.440 --> 0:23:20.800
<v Speaker 3>around the very holding of this situation. And so, because

0:23:20.840 --> 0:23:24.680
<v Speaker 3>Delaware is such a focal area, even its trial court

0:23:24.720 --> 0:23:27.600
<v Speaker 3>opinions can tend to be a little bit more on

0:23:27.720 --> 0:23:32.120
<v Speaker 3>the on the lengthy side, simply to anticipate a bunch

0:23:32.200 --> 0:23:34.280
<v Speaker 3>of the different ways that people might read it. Now,

0:23:34.640 --> 0:23:36.720
<v Speaker 3>add on top of that the fact that that by

0:23:36.840 --> 0:23:39.520
<v Speaker 3>chance the Last himself, you know, he does sort of

0:23:39.560 --> 0:23:43.120
<v Speaker 3>relish the idea of trying to excavate the historical origins

0:23:43.160 --> 0:23:45.840
<v Speaker 3>of some of these doctrines, and he did so in

0:23:46.040 --> 0:23:49.840
<v Speaker 3>multiple ways here and sort of developed that in his

0:23:49.960 --> 0:23:52.800
<v Speaker 3>early opinion. For someone who's sort of a student or

0:23:52.840 --> 0:23:57.480
<v Speaker 3>a researcher in the origins of Delaware jurisprudence or just

0:23:57.560 --> 0:24:00.560
<v Speaker 3>common law jurisprudence. It's actually quite a tree to read

0:24:00.600 --> 0:24:03.640
<v Speaker 3>these opinions. However, I have to confess and that when

0:24:03.680 --> 0:24:07.000
<v Speaker 3>I a sign a Vice Chancellor Laster opinion, to my

0:24:07.040 --> 0:24:10.520
<v Speaker 3>own students, there's a sort of a collective groan because

0:24:10.560 --> 0:24:12.359
<v Speaker 3>they know they're going to be reading something that's one

0:24:12.400 --> 0:24:14.840
<v Speaker 3>hundred and fifty hundred and sixty two hundred pages long.

0:24:15.400 --> 0:24:19.560
<v Speaker 1>And then he had ten months of additional proceedings. This

0:24:19.680 --> 0:24:21.639
<v Speaker 1>case is never ending. What took ten months.

0:24:22.080 --> 0:24:24.359
<v Speaker 3>Well, one of the things that the court basically said,

0:24:24.400 --> 0:24:26.920
<v Speaker 3>the Supreme Court said, is no, no, no. It turns

0:24:26.960 --> 0:24:29.520
<v Speaker 3>out that they were well within their rights to just

0:24:29.640 --> 0:24:32.639
<v Speaker 3>seize this stock away from this guy because he had

0:24:32.680 --> 0:24:36.520
<v Speaker 3>violated his original loan agreements. But now you've got to

0:24:36.560 --> 0:24:41.280
<v Speaker 3>go back and determine whether there are additional damages that

0:24:41.400 --> 0:24:45.280
<v Speaker 3>are due to the original lender. And those took a

0:24:45.320 --> 0:24:48.840
<v Speaker 3>couple of different forms. One because our defendant in this

0:24:48.920 --> 0:24:51.600
<v Speaker 3>case held stock in this company. That company had lent

0:24:51.680 --> 0:24:54.480
<v Speaker 3>him money. He was also a board member of that company,

0:24:54.560 --> 0:24:59.520
<v Speaker 3>and most companies have an indemnification provision in their governance

0:24:59.600 --> 0:25:02.600
<v Speaker 3>Dockments basically says, if we get into litigation with you,

0:25:02.720 --> 0:25:04.840
<v Speaker 3>we have to pay for your attorney spees. And they

0:25:04.840 --> 0:25:07.080
<v Speaker 3>had one with this guy as well. Now that seems

0:25:07.080 --> 0:25:09.119
<v Speaker 3>a little bit weird when you are suing someone and

0:25:09.160 --> 0:25:11.080
<v Speaker 3>then you're having to pay your own attorney and pay

0:25:11.119 --> 0:25:14.400
<v Speaker 3>theirs as well. And so a lot of these indemnification provisions,

0:25:14.440 --> 0:25:18.120
<v Speaker 3>and this one was true. In addition, have a kind

0:25:18.119 --> 0:25:20.679
<v Speaker 3>of an off switch that says, you know, if you

0:25:20.840 --> 0:25:24.280
<v Speaker 3>behave in a way that was either fraudulent or willful

0:25:24.800 --> 0:25:28.359
<v Speaker 3>or grossly negligent, then we get to claw back the

0:25:28.440 --> 0:25:32.080
<v Speaker 3>attorney speed. So part of what by stance Laster had

0:25:32.080 --> 0:25:35.040
<v Speaker 3>to do once the case came back is to ask

0:25:35.600 --> 0:25:40.080
<v Speaker 3>what does it mean to willfully breach one of these agreements?

0:25:40.240 --> 0:25:43.960
<v Speaker 3>And did this individual do so? And ultimately he determined

0:25:44.240 --> 0:25:48.800
<v Speaker 3>that the person had willfully breached the agreement and because

0:25:48.840 --> 0:25:51.360
<v Speaker 3>of that, the company got to claw back the attorney

0:25:51.440 --> 0:25:54.359
<v Speaker 3>spees that they had been paying. You know, this guy's

0:25:54.359 --> 0:25:57.640
<v Speaker 3>attorney spees that they got to claw back those those payments.

0:25:57.960 --> 0:26:01.000
<v Speaker 3>The other thing that he had to inherit, you know,

0:26:01.040 --> 0:26:03.920
<v Speaker 3>there was this initial loan and then this defendant had

0:26:04.280 --> 0:26:07.320
<v Speaker 3>had a loan with another you know, with this other lender,

0:26:07.640 --> 0:26:10.400
<v Speaker 3>and the shares were kind of caught up. Who who,

0:26:10.600 --> 0:26:13.600
<v Speaker 3>you know basically could claim these shares as collateral. So

0:26:13.640 --> 0:26:16.560
<v Speaker 3>the two lenders were litigating against each other, and then

0:26:16.600 --> 0:26:20.360
<v Speaker 3>that eventuated in a big settlement. So our plane iff

0:26:20.359 --> 0:26:22.240
<v Speaker 3>in this case said, not only should we have been

0:26:22.240 --> 0:26:24.960
<v Speaker 3>able to claw back the shares, but we had to

0:26:25.000 --> 0:26:27.040
<v Speaker 3>spend all this money on this other lawsuit, and that

0:26:27.080 --> 0:26:29.520
<v Speaker 3>should be part of our damages that he could have

0:26:29.680 --> 0:26:32.800
<v Speaker 3>foreseen that we were going to have to suffer. And

0:26:32.880 --> 0:26:35.960
<v Speaker 3>so by Chancellor Alaster had to adjudicate that as well,

0:26:36.000 --> 0:26:39.199
<v Speaker 3>and he also said, yeah, there were payments in that

0:26:39.520 --> 0:26:43.000
<v Speaker 3>external lawsuit that they also had to pay. So when

0:26:43.040 --> 0:26:45.760
<v Speaker 3>this case came back and by Chancellor Alaster got it,

0:26:45.840 --> 0:26:48.720
<v Speaker 3>not only did the Supreme Court, hell know, your original

0:26:48.760 --> 0:26:51.560
<v Speaker 3>opinion is going to hold water and we're not going

0:26:51.600 --> 0:26:54.919
<v Speaker 3>to reverse it, but now you need to assess further

0:26:55.040 --> 0:26:58.760
<v Speaker 3>damages against this person that he's going to have to

0:26:58.800 --> 0:27:04.000
<v Speaker 3>pay because of his original violation of his contractual obligation.

0:27:04.119 --> 0:27:07.159
<v Speaker 3>So this most recent opinion was basically by chance Or

0:27:07.240 --> 0:27:10.640
<v Speaker 3>Laster then trying to unpack what those additional damages would

0:27:10.680 --> 0:27:12.240
<v Speaker 3>be you really need to.

0:27:12.200 --> 0:27:15.680
<v Speaker 1>Make a diagram to try to keep this all straight.

0:27:16.160 --> 0:27:18.840
<v Speaker 1>Is this latest opinion controversial.

0:27:18.480 --> 0:27:21.920
<v Speaker 3>Well, in some ways it's not amazingly controversial, But there

0:27:21.920 --> 0:27:23.960
<v Speaker 3>are a couple things that I think are really interesting

0:27:23.960 --> 0:27:26.800
<v Speaker 3>about it. So one is this idea. And when you

0:27:26.880 --> 0:27:28.960
<v Speaker 3>read the opinion, you do kind of get this sense

0:27:29.040 --> 0:27:31.639
<v Speaker 3>that the person who ends up being held liable here,

0:27:32.240 --> 0:27:36.760
<v Speaker 3>you know, he wasn't completely above board on everything. But

0:27:37.040 --> 0:27:38.720
<v Speaker 3>there was also a sense to the other side knew

0:27:38.760 --> 0:27:40.840
<v Speaker 3>what was going on as well. So the fact that

0:27:40.880 --> 0:27:43.960
<v Speaker 3>the Supreme Court didn't give by chances laster here or

0:27:44.000 --> 0:27:47.880
<v Speaker 3>more generally, other trial courts the discretion to kind of

0:27:48.240 --> 0:27:50.679
<v Speaker 3>pull back to sixty thousand feet and say we're going

0:27:50.720 --> 0:27:53.720
<v Speaker 3>to try to do what's fair under the circumstances, that

0:27:53.760 --> 0:27:56.439
<v Speaker 3>I think is a little bit controversial, right, that the

0:27:56.480 --> 0:27:59.360
<v Speaker 3>Supreme Court basically said, now, if you've done something that

0:28:00.040 --> 0:28:02.520
<v Speaker 3>basically causes the deal that you've made to be to

0:28:02.560 --> 0:28:05.600
<v Speaker 3>be void from the very beginning, even if people have

0:28:05.920 --> 0:28:11.680
<v Speaker 3>acted in you know, possibly less than completely upfront ways,

0:28:12.119 --> 0:28:15.320
<v Speaker 3>we're not going to give judges the discretion to kind

0:28:15.359 --> 0:28:18.000
<v Speaker 3>of try to do justice on a broader plane, and

0:28:18.240 --> 0:28:21.720
<v Speaker 3>I think that in some ways limits what the Delaware

0:28:21.760 --> 0:28:25.080
<v Speaker 3>Chancery Court has historically done. So I think that's that's

0:28:25.160 --> 0:28:27.359
<v Speaker 3>one thing that is possibly going to be a little

0:28:27.359 --> 0:28:31.159
<v Speaker 3>bit controversial. There may be some other things about how

0:28:31.160 --> 0:28:34.399
<v Speaker 3>do you calculate damages in this case that you know

0:28:34.480 --> 0:28:36.600
<v Speaker 3>could stay alive. You know, one of the things that

0:28:36.880 --> 0:28:38.680
<v Speaker 3>you know, if ice changed the last didn't try to

0:28:38.680 --> 0:28:40.560
<v Speaker 3>do in the opinion, is to try to say, well, like,

0:28:40.720 --> 0:28:43.400
<v Speaker 3>just how valuable were these shares that got seized back?

0:28:43.480 --> 0:28:48.040
<v Speaker 3>Did these guys get overcompensated when they seized back these shares?

0:28:48.920 --> 0:28:52.760
<v Speaker 3>And as a result, should I have shaved my damages

0:28:52.840 --> 0:28:55.200
<v Speaker 3>but a little bit more to reflect the fact that

0:28:55.240 --> 0:28:57.720
<v Speaker 3>they might I got it overcompensated. So I think there

0:28:57.760 --> 0:28:59.840
<v Speaker 3>may be a few things that are you know, certainly

0:28:59.840 --> 0:29:02.960
<v Speaker 3>for someone like myself who teaches and does research and

0:29:03.080 --> 0:29:06.440
<v Speaker 3>contracts that are kind of in the weeds of contract

0:29:06.520 --> 0:29:10.600
<v Speaker 3>damages law that are super interesting. And this case may

0:29:10.680 --> 0:29:12.920
<v Speaker 3>end up casting a longer shadow, and it may not

0:29:13.120 --> 0:29:16.160
<v Speaker 3>even be done at the Dallas Supreme Court level if

0:29:16.240 --> 0:29:19.720
<v Speaker 3>in fact some of the computations of damages themselves get appeal.

0:29:20.400 --> 0:29:23.400
<v Speaker 1>Tell us a little about last he had this decision

0:29:23.960 --> 0:29:28.200
<v Speaker 1>that got a lot of attention that invalidated many shareholder agreements.

0:29:28.600 --> 0:29:31.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, so this was a decision not that long ago

0:29:31.120 --> 0:29:38.360
<v Speaker 3>actually that invalidated some side shareholder agreements that had become

0:29:39.040 --> 0:29:43.480
<v Speaker 3>a little bit more popular, particularly outside of the public

0:29:43.560 --> 0:29:48.600
<v Speaker 3>company space, but also had never really been tested in courts.

0:29:49.080 --> 0:29:54.120
<v Speaker 3>That basically gave a favored shareholder extra special rights to

0:29:54.160 --> 0:29:57.360
<v Speaker 3>control what the board of directors does, and you didn't

0:29:57.520 --> 0:30:00.400
<v Speaker 3>really even have to get the consent sometimes that even

0:30:00.480 --> 0:30:04.480
<v Speaker 3>have to tell other stockholders about the existence of these contracts.

0:30:04.480 --> 0:30:06.560
<v Speaker 3>And by chance to the laster had one of these

0:30:06.600 --> 0:30:10.040
<v Speaker 3>opinions less than a year ago, and he came out

0:30:10.080 --> 0:30:13.560
<v Speaker 3>with an opinion that basically invalidated those contracts. They said, look,

0:30:13.800 --> 0:30:16.400
<v Speaker 3>you can't do this on a side contract. These are

0:30:16.440 --> 0:30:20.480
<v Speaker 3>about sort of fundamental governance provisions that you know pretty

0:30:20.520 --> 0:30:22.720
<v Speaker 3>much have to be in the charter of a company

0:30:22.840 --> 0:30:25.880
<v Speaker 3>or its bylaws, but you can't hide him in a contract.

0:30:25.880 --> 0:30:29.720
<v Speaker 3>And so he invalidated the contracts. It caused a huge

0:30:30.120 --> 0:30:33.800
<v Speaker 3>storm when that came out, and a lot of folks

0:30:33.840 --> 0:30:36.600
<v Speaker 3>who had you know, already advised their clients so it's

0:30:36.640 --> 0:30:39.640
<v Speaker 3>okay to get into these side contracts. I think felt

0:30:39.720 --> 0:30:41.360
<v Speaker 3>a little bit of a danger that, you know, there

0:30:41.440 --> 0:30:43.720
<v Speaker 3>might be some egg on their face and they're they're

0:30:43.760 --> 0:30:46.920
<v Speaker 3>already knee deep and executing even more of these contracts.

0:30:47.280 --> 0:30:50.840
<v Speaker 3>And so over the summer this past summer, there was

0:30:50.960 --> 0:30:55.600
<v Speaker 3>a concerted effort that was ultimately successful in getting the

0:30:55.680 --> 0:30:59.440
<v Speaker 3>Delaware Assembly to essentially, you know, pass a new law

0:30:59.760 --> 0:31:03.560
<v Speaker 3>that basically overruled Vice Chancellor Laster's opinion before it even

0:31:03.600 --> 0:31:07.200
<v Speaker 3>went up to the Delaware Supreme Court. And that itself

0:31:07.280 --> 0:31:10.640
<v Speaker 3>was quite controversial. I was one of several co authors

0:31:10.640 --> 0:31:13.880
<v Speaker 3>of a letter to the Delaware Assembly is that this

0:31:13.920 --> 0:31:16.400
<v Speaker 3>is a little bit hasty, it's a little bit fast.

0:31:16.880 --> 0:31:19.400
<v Speaker 3>It seems to be that rather than you know, waiting

0:31:19.480 --> 0:31:22.680
<v Speaker 3>for this appeals process to play out, parties have just

0:31:22.720 --> 0:31:26.120
<v Speaker 3>decided to turn to the legislature to use the legislature

0:31:26.160 --> 0:31:30.080
<v Speaker 3>to overrule a trial court opinion, which seemed somewhat unprecedented.

0:31:30.120 --> 0:31:32.600
<v Speaker 3>And I can't think of other circumstances where it's happened.

0:31:32.640 --> 0:31:36.200
<v Speaker 3>So five chances of Laster. Interestingly enough, in the span

0:31:36.280 --> 0:31:39.320
<v Speaker 3>of you know, of a year, he got overruled by

0:31:39.360 --> 0:31:43.520
<v Speaker 3>the Delaware legislature. But he didn't get overruled by the

0:31:43.520 --> 0:31:46.000
<v Speaker 3>Supreme Court, which is what he really wanted to get

0:31:46.520 --> 0:31:50.320
<v Speaker 3>overruled by. So this, this law now has been signed

0:31:50.440 --> 0:31:54.920
<v Speaker 3>into effectiveness by the Governor of Delaware, and the legal

0:31:54.960 --> 0:32:02.120
<v Speaker 3>permissibility of these side contracts now is evidently okay under

0:32:02.160 --> 0:32:06.160
<v Speaker 3>Delaware law. But there's all kinds of open questions about

0:32:06.560 --> 0:32:08.880
<v Speaker 3>how is that law going to come out? And much

0:32:08.920 --> 0:32:12.080
<v Speaker 3>of this kind of started by what seemed to be

0:32:12.240 --> 0:32:15.960
<v Speaker 3>kind of a strong pushback against a Vice Chances the

0:32:16.040 --> 0:32:21.040
<v Speaker 3>Laster opinion. The opinion itself, you know, I've taught it,

0:32:21.080 --> 0:32:24.520
<v Speaker 3>I've read it many times. It really is a kind

0:32:24.520 --> 0:32:27.280
<v Speaker 3>of a by the book opinion. So so my sense

0:32:27.400 --> 0:32:30.640
<v Speaker 3>is that, you know, Vice Chansor Laster's reasoning in the

0:32:30.680 --> 0:32:35.040
<v Speaker 3>case was pretty consistent with Delaware law, and the fact that,

0:32:35.240 --> 0:32:37.920
<v Speaker 3>you know, there had been so many examples of people

0:32:38.000 --> 0:32:39.920
<v Speaker 3>basically saying, oh, don't don't worry, this is going to

0:32:40.000 --> 0:32:42.160
<v Speaker 3>be okay. You know, if this is tested, it's not

0:32:42.200 --> 0:32:47.000
<v Speaker 3>going to come out against us. That expectation got deeply disappointed,

0:32:47.040 --> 0:32:49.440
<v Speaker 3>and I think that's what caused this really, you know,

0:32:49.880 --> 0:32:54.080
<v Speaker 3>fairly fairly forceful rush to try to change Delaware law

0:32:54.120 --> 0:32:54.960
<v Speaker 3>through its statutes.

0:32:55.680 --> 0:32:57.440
<v Speaker 4>And what's his reputation.

0:32:57.640 --> 0:33:00.920
<v Speaker 3>Well, Vice Chancel Laster is well known be an extremely

0:33:01.080 --> 0:33:04.680
<v Speaker 3>thoughtful person. Uh he is. He is a person that

0:33:04.840 --> 0:33:09.000
<v Speaker 3>like tries to to to reason from first principles and

0:33:09.120 --> 0:33:11.400
<v Speaker 3>to try to sort of think where does this practice

0:33:11.440 --> 0:33:15.560
<v Speaker 3>fit within the longer role that uh that you know,

0:33:15.600 --> 0:33:20.280
<v Speaker 3>the Delaware Court of Chancery has you know, historically and institutionally.

0:33:20.360 --> 0:33:24.960
<v Speaker 3>Now that sometimes rankles people because he is not a

0:33:25.200 --> 0:33:26.920
<v Speaker 3>kind of I'm just going to go with the flow

0:33:27.000 --> 0:33:29.560
<v Speaker 3>of what the cool kids are doing these days type

0:33:29.560 --> 0:33:32.600
<v Speaker 3>of judge. And if if he can't find a way

0:33:32.640 --> 0:33:36.160
<v Speaker 3>to reason to the outcome, he may well end up

0:33:36.280 --> 0:33:41.360
<v Speaker 3>resisting that outcome. And and so that inevitably causes some

0:33:41.480 --> 0:33:45.520
<v Speaker 3>frictions inside Delaware law. I find when I when I

0:33:45.640 --> 0:33:49.320
<v Speaker 3>teach Vice Chancellor Laster's opinion, they're very long. So the

0:33:49.320 --> 0:33:51.840
<v Speaker 3>students are a little bit are a little bit grumpy

0:33:51.880 --> 0:33:54.120
<v Speaker 3>by the time I'm teaching the case because they've had

0:33:54.160 --> 0:33:56.440
<v Speaker 3>to spend so much time reading it. But they're very

0:33:56.480 --> 0:33:59.160
<v Speaker 3>well reasoned and they build up in a logical way

0:33:59.280 --> 0:34:01.800
<v Speaker 3>to where they're going to end up getting. And this

0:34:01.880 --> 0:34:05.400
<v Speaker 3>opinion that was you know, effectively nullified or at least

0:34:05.480 --> 0:34:09.240
<v Speaker 3>going forward, was nullified by the legislature. It was similar.

0:34:09.480 --> 0:34:14.160
<v Speaker 3>It was not a quick or slap dash and it's reasoning.

0:34:14.200 --> 0:34:16.640
<v Speaker 3>It sort of built it up piece by piece, and

0:34:16.680 --> 0:34:19.680
<v Speaker 3>so by chance to the last year, absolutely has a

0:34:19.760 --> 0:34:24.600
<v Speaker 3>reputation of being a very smart, very articulate judge who

0:34:24.680 --> 0:34:27.239
<v Speaker 3>also you know, is going to you know, try to

0:34:27.280 --> 0:34:29.840
<v Speaker 3>reason his own way to the outcome. And if the

0:34:29.880 --> 0:34:33.520
<v Speaker 3>reasoning doesn't hold together, it's unlikely he's just gonna you know,

0:34:33.560 --> 0:34:36.279
<v Speaker 3>wave his hands at it and say, well, that's still

0:34:36.280 --> 0:34:38.799
<v Speaker 3>good to the outcome, because that's just what everyone else

0:34:38.920 --> 0:34:41.520
<v Speaker 3>is doing. So he's you know, maybe a little bit

0:34:41.600 --> 0:34:44.680
<v Speaker 3>more of an iconoclastic judge than you will have elsewhere,

0:34:44.719 --> 0:34:48.080
<v Speaker 3>but he's also a very engaged thinker. In the opinions

0:34:48.080 --> 0:34:48.960
<v Speaker 3>that he writes.

0:34:48.840 --> 0:34:52.960
<v Speaker 1>He certainly sounds like an interesting judge. Thanks so much, Eric, Best,

0:34:52.960 --> 0:34:56.279
<v Speaker 1>Professor Eric Talley of Columbia Law School. And that's it

0:34:56.320 --> 0:34:59.239
<v Speaker 1>for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you

0:34:59.280 --> 0:35:02.000
<v Speaker 1>can always get the latest legal news by subscribing and

0:35:02.080 --> 0:35:05.600
<v Speaker 1>listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

0:35:05.640 --> 0:35:08.640
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law.

0:35:08.960 --> 0:35:11.680
<v Speaker 4>I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg