Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: And the protests of racial inequality have been heard from Kenosha,
Speaker 1: Wisconsin to Rochester, New York. And the economic impacts of
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen, from job losses to business closures, have disproportionately
Speaker 1: affected Black Americans as much as the virus itself has.
Speaker 1: Even the last resort, the lifeline of bankruptcy, may not
Speaker 1: be equipped to give black debtors a fresh start. My
Speaker 1: guest is Michelle Dickerson, a professor at the University of
Speaker 1: Texas at Austin Law School and an early researcher on
Speaker 1: race and bankruptcy. Michelle, dozens of academic studies show that
Speaker 1: Blacks file for bankruptcy more than any other racial group,
Speaker 1: yet get less permanent relief. Can you explore there are
Speaker 1: a number of reasons why that may be happening. The
Speaker 1: reason I phrase the answer that way is because the
Speaker 1: studies themselves weren't able to pinpoint exactly why that is occurring.
Speaker 1: But one thing that we're seeing painfully during COVID right
Speaker 1: now is that Blacks in this country for a whole
Speaker 1: host of reasons, meaning because of systemic racism, profile worth
Speaker 1: financially lower savings rates, lower household income, higher students loans rates,
Speaker 1: so it's not terribly surprising that blacks would have higher
Speaker 1: filing rates. One of the academic studies a few years
Speaker 1: ago suggested that blacks were being steered into Chapter thirteen,
Speaker 1: which is a bankruptcy plan where you repay your bills
Speaker 1: or like some of your bills over a five year period,
Speaker 1: as opposed to Chapter seven, which is a much quicker
Speaker 1: and easier process, so to the extent that blacks profile
Speaker 1: as more financially fragile, and then they pushed into chapter
Speaker 1: thirteen and told try to repay your bills. That would explain,
Speaker 1: at least for me, why you have more blacks filings
Speaker 1: but fewer blacks actually getting the release that bankruptcy is
Speaker 1: in series supposed to provide. Why do you think blacks
Speaker 1: are being steered to chapter thirteen if chapter seven would
Speaker 1: work better for them? Again, I'll say that the studies
Speaker 1: were not able to say why. Lots of theories, and
Speaker 1: again they're just series. One theory could be that the
Speaker 1: bankruptcy professionals, whether we're talking about lawyers or trustees or judges,
Speaker 1: may have concluded that somehow chapter thirteen is better for
Speaker 1: blacks the chapter seven. That makes no sense because, at
Speaker 1: least for the academic studies, the one that was done
Speaker 1: about five or six years ago actually probably closer to ten. Now,
Speaker 1: it certainly seemed as if whites were being steered away
Speaker 1: from chapter thirteen and two chapter seven, whereas blacks were
Speaker 1: being steered two chapter thirteen and away from chapter seven.
Speaker 1: Whether racial biases are playing a role, we don't know,
Speaker 1: at least we don't know from the studies, but it
Speaker 1: is hard to imagine why it would be deemed better
Speaker 1: for blacks to attempt to repay their bills but not
Speaker 1: for whites to attempt to repay their bills. So, for
Speaker 1: those who are not in the know, would you explain
Speaker 1: a little more about the differences between chapter thirteen and
Speaker 1: chapter seven and why more people actually get out of
Speaker 1: bankruptcy with chapter seven. Yeah, chapter seven is a much
Speaker 1: quicker process to sort of, you know, phrase the colloquially.
Speaker 1: This is not what the bankruptcy Code says, but essentially
Speaker 1: the debtor says, Look, I don't have much property that
Speaker 1: I'm trying to keep. I want this to be a
Speaker 1: quick and simple process. Here's the little property that you
Speaker 1: are allowed to get as creditors that the code says
Speaker 1: I don't get to keep. Take a little amount that
Speaker 1: you're allowed to get creditors, and discharge my debt. So
Speaker 1: it's a quick process. In contrast, Chapter thirteen, even if
Speaker 1: it is successful and the success rates are not great
Speaker 1: in terms of the number of people that actually make
Speaker 1: all of the payments over five year periods. But Chapter
Speaker 1: thirteen can last for up to five years. That's a
Speaker 1: very different process and a very different thing also psychologically,
Speaker 1: because effectively, in Chapter thirteen, you have to be able
Speaker 1: to get I am going to be able to repay
Speaker 1: a certain percentage of my bill over up five year period,
Speaker 1: not knowing that am I going to have the same
Speaker 1: jobs in five years? I mean, imagine if people had
Speaker 1: entered into a Chapter thirteen plan in November of nineteen
Speaker 1: only to have COVID hit and they lose their jobs. Well,
Speaker 1: COVID obviously is sort of the once in a lifetime
Speaker 1: at least we cope economic and health pandemic. But for
Speaker 1: lots of people blacks and other sort of middle income,
Speaker 1: lower income workers, there isn't great stability in terms of
Speaker 1: their employment So the notion that you can commit right
Speaker 1: now that you know you're going to be able to
Speaker 1: make a certain amount of plan payments over the next
Speaker 1: five years is given our current economic climate, an unrealistic expectations.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of talk about systemic racism in
Speaker 1: the justice system. Is there a racist element in the
Speaker 1: US Bankruptcy Code? Intentional? No, But if you look at
Speaker 1: the way the code is structured for human beings that
Speaker 1: follow for bankruptcy, there are clear biases, and it's just
Speaker 1: so happens that those biases favor a certain profile, which
Speaker 1: I have called in the past the ideal debtor. So,
Speaker 1: if you are a homeowner and you want to be
Speaker 1: able to restructure your debts to keep your home, bankruptcy
Speaker 1: is a good thing. Well, when you look at the
Speaker 1: differences in the home ownership rate for white, blacks and Latinos,
Speaker 1: that favors white because white are more likely to own
Speaker 1: homes than blacks and Latinos. If you look at other
Speaker 1: things like the type of property that you're allowed to keep,
Speaker 1: intangible property like a retirement of pension, well, if you
Speaker 1: look at the pension participation rates, Whites are disproportionately likely
Speaker 1: to have both an employer provided pension and also private
Speaker 1: saving through an i RA. So the code has this
Speaker 1: model of who they think the debtor is that is
Speaker 1: deserving of protection in bankruptcy, and when they created the
Speaker 1: provisions to protect certain types of debtors, a certain debtor
Speaker 1: was in mind, and that debtor is not a typical
Speaker 1: Black or Latino America. There's been a lot of news
Speaker 1: about how COVID nineteen has disproportionately hit the black community
Speaker 1: as far as number of cases, but it's also hit
Speaker 1: the black community more harshly than whites economically. So during
Speaker 1: the pandemic, of black owned business is closed compared to
Speaker 1: seventeen percent of white owned businesses. How do you account
Speaker 1: for that that's a huge difference. Well, one thing, and
Speaker 1: this isn't sort of a bankruptcy results, but one thing
Speaker 1: that happened is when at the very beginning of the
Speaker 1: p P P Blane program, there were lots of problems
Speaker 1: as we all painfully saw a play out, certainly in
Speaker 1: the media. And if you're a small um sort of
Speaker 1: mom and pop are so propriet to black business and
Speaker 1: you don't and you didn't have a longstanding relationship with
Speaker 1: the lender, it was highly unlikely that you were going
Speaker 1: to get one of those loans. They tried to fix
Speaker 1: some of those problems in the second waves of the
Speaker 1: p PP loans, but the simple reality is that if
Speaker 1: you are someone that isn't being favored by a lender,
Speaker 1: and you weren't favored by a lender pre COVID, then
Speaker 1: it was going to be hard for you to get
Speaker 1: those loans. And also, uh, there there are some studies
Speaker 1: out there that indicate that black businesses in general, notwithstanding
Speaker 1: all of the anti discrimination laws, have a harder time
Speaker 1: getting access to capital and particularly to low interest rate blows.
Speaker 1: So I was surprised to learn that personal bankruptcy filings
Speaker 1: have dropped rather than spiked during the pandemic. A big
Speaker 1: drop of is that because people aren't getting to their
Speaker 1: lawyer's offices or is there you know a reason why
Speaker 1: bankruptcy filings would have dropped? Will There would be a
Speaker 1: host of reasons, and again I'm somewhat speculating. First, you
Speaker 1: can't get to your lawyer's office. Second, your lawyer's offices
Speaker 1: or lawyer's offices are backed up um But third, to
Speaker 1: the extent that someone is going to fill for Chapter
Speaker 1: thirteen and they have no income. There's really no reason
Speaker 1: to propose a plan when you know that you don't
Speaker 1: have a job and you won't be able to propose
Speaker 1: any planned payments. So, I mean, it could be a
Speaker 1: sort of a whole range of reasons why people haven't filed.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean, of course, that there is not economic
Speaker 1: desperation that's out there. Um. And the other thing I
Speaker 1: would add is for some of those folks, that could
Speaker 1: also be that they have filed in the last few
Speaker 1: years and therefore they're not eligible to refile. But it
Speaker 1: is sort of a bit um. It seems to be
Speaker 1: a bit of a disconnect that we're in this horrendous
Speaker 1: economic crisis and yet bankruptcy filings are down. I will
Speaker 1: be surprised if they remain low, but it is a
Speaker 1: bit shocking that they're still long now. There was some
Speaker 1: relief for those already in Chapter thirteen from the Cares Act.
Speaker 1: They allowed you to modify your plans, extend the time
Speaker 1: of your Chapter thirteen bankruptcy things like that. Was there
Speaker 1: enough relief so to the extent that you're going to
Speaker 1: extend and you have no income, the extension really doesn't
Speaker 1: help you and also one of the things that I
Speaker 1: have said repeatedly is bankruptcy works. Well, if you have
Speaker 1: sort of a one off problem, you know, you have
Speaker 1: an unexpected financial catastrophe and you can't afford to pay it,
Speaker 1: you file for bankruptcy, you're able to get that discharge.
Speaker 1: The problem that we're seeing now with America, certainly the
Speaker 1: middle class and also to some extent our lower income
Speaker 1: workers as well, is there is instability. And so even
Speaker 1: if you get an extension or if you're told you
Speaker 1: can file for bankruptcy, if you don't know that you
Speaker 1: are going to have any income to repay any bills
Speaker 1: Interchapter thirteen plans, there's no reason to file. And again,
Speaker 1: as I said earlier, the extension doesn't help you if
Speaker 1: you have no income to pay. Are there any solutions
Speaker 1: to help make bankruptcy a better prospect for black debtors. Well,
Speaker 1: I've been on a pair for the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: One of the things that we don't know in bankruptcy
Speaker 1: is anything about race because they're not required to collect
Speaker 1: that data. And so the academic studies have been terrific,
Speaker 1: but these are professors who went about to collect the data.
Speaker 1: There's absolutely no reason that the Administrative office can't say
Speaker 1: that bankruptcy courts, you know, as part of filing for bankruptcy,
Speaker 1: we need to have information about race because it's hard
Speaker 1: to figure out exactly what's going on in bankruptcy. If
Speaker 1: we're not keeping track of what's going on in bankruptcy,
Speaker 1: and so we want to know what's going on with
Speaker 1: respect to race, then we need to count it. And
Speaker 1: for example, if we then see that, you know, blacks
Speaker 1: are disproportionately you know, three times, it's like that I'm
Speaker 1: just making up a number here three times, it's likely
Speaker 1: to be pushed into a more expensive, longer term Chapter
Speaker 1: thirteen than to be pushed into a shorter, cheaper Chapter seven.
Speaker 1: We can then go about asking the trustees officers, to judges,
Speaker 1: the lawyers, why are you doing this? But one of
Speaker 1: the problems that we have right now is we don't
Speaker 1: have comprehensive data. That was another surprise, because it seems
Speaker 1: like every form you fill out, any official form, they
Speaker 1: ask about your race or ethnicity. So it's kind of
Speaker 1: odd that they don't ask that in the bankruptcy court.
Speaker 1: You can say, odd, I hope it is not intentional,
Speaker 1: but certainly when we see what's going on now with
Speaker 1: the census, and you know, ending things early in the
Speaker 1: potential of an undercount. One wonders if no one wants
Speaker 1: to see the data. But there's absolutely no reason. You're right.
Speaker 1: I mean every time we see out of perform about
Speaker 1: almost anything there as you know what, gender, which race,
Speaker 1: but not in bankruptcy. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Laws shell. Michelle. That's Michelle Dickerson, a professor of bankruptcy
Speaker 1: law at the University of Texas at Austin Law School.
Speaker 1: What would a president Biden mean for employers and employees,
Speaker 1: at least according to his policy initiatives, Well, if you
Speaker 1: live in California, you may already have a notion of
Speaker 1: what the legal landscape is likely to be. Joining me
Speaker 1: is employment law expert Amphony on c, a partner at
Speaker 1: Proscouer Rose give us an overview. Will change as in
Speaker 1: the Biden administration in employment laws benefit employers or employees?
Speaker 1: I think the changes that are proposed will overwhelmingly benefit
Speaker 1: employees and in particular labor unions. Many of the proposals
Speaker 1: fulfill a wish list that organized labor has had for
Speaker 1: many years. Indeed, in some cases decades, all of which
Speaker 1: are addressed in some way or another by the Biden proposals.
Speaker 1: So I guess by indirect association, employees will be benefited
Speaker 1: by that, but principally labor unions will be assisted and
Speaker 1: aided by much of the legislation that is proposed by
Speaker 1: the prospective Biden administration. Unions have been losing power for years,
Speaker 1: even as if freeing court has added to their woes.
Speaker 1: Is it even possible to dial that back? Well, that's
Speaker 1: really what much of this legislation looks like. It appears
Speaker 1: to be a rearguard action on the part of labor
Speaker 1: unions to try to at least hold on to the
Speaker 1: percentage of the workforce that they currently represent, and perhaps
Speaker 1: even reverse the trend that has been going on since
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties, which has seen consistent reductions in the number
Speaker 1: and percentage of employees that are represented by labor unions.
Speaker 1: We are in a situation today in the United States
Speaker 1: where approximately ten percent of the workforce is unionized. That's
Speaker 1: down from over in the and if you break down
Speaker 1: that ten percent that exists today, that's only about six
Speaker 1: of the private sector and approximately a third of the
Speaker 1: public sector. So public employe unions are really quite robust
Speaker 1: still in today's environment. But where unions have really lost
Speaker 1: ground is among private sector employers. What do you see
Speaker 1: as some of the most important changes that would directly
Speaker 1: affect unions? Sort of job one, if you will. The
Speaker 1: unions have been in effect. This was true in the
Speaker 1: early years of the Obama administration. To try to get
Speaker 1: this pass as well, something known as card check. The
Speaker 1: proposed legislation sometimes goes by the acronym f E f
Speaker 1: C A, which stands for the Employee Free Choice Act.
Speaker 1: It's somewhat of an ironic name for it because really
Speaker 1: what it does is it eliminates the need for elections
Speaker 1: in unionization campaigns. Today, what we have is, if you
Speaker 1: have a non unionized workforce, the union needs to qualify
Speaker 1: to have an election, which is federally supervised and by
Speaker 1: the National Relations Board, And of course a union wins
Speaker 1: that election, the employer and the employees have union then
Speaker 1: collect the bargaining takes place. The Employee Free Choice Act
Speaker 1: approaches the situation somewhat differently. It allows union officials organizers
Speaker 1: to get employees to sign cards without there being any election,
Speaker 1: without there being any campaign and if the union can
Speaker 1: get enough cards the majority of the workforce to sign
Speaker 1: these cards. UH. And of course it's very difficult to
Speaker 1: tell what the circumstance center which UH those cards are signed.
Speaker 1: That there could be threats, there could be promises that
Speaker 1: are unmonitored by the government, unmonitored by the employer. But
Speaker 1: if if the union shows up with plus one of
Speaker 1: those cards, the union exists at the union will then
Speaker 1: be subject to collective bargaining with the employer and there
Speaker 1: will be no election. So, although it's called the Employee
Speaker 1: Free Choice Act BAC, employees will be deprived of the
Speaker 1: right to have an election in the event that the
Speaker 1: percent plus one cards are gotten by the union behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. Usually, what about right to work? States? Will
Speaker 1: that sept interfere. Most union policy involving collective bargaining rights, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Exists on the federal level, but as a result of
Speaker 1: along of the Taft partly Acts was passed in the
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties. UH. There is the right for and has
Speaker 1: been amended. There's the right for states to regulate some
Speaker 1: of the aspects of this, and approximately twenty seven states
Speaker 1: in the United States have what are called right to
Speaker 1: work laws, and essentially what they do is they prohibit
Speaker 1: so called union security clauses. Union security clauses say that
Speaker 1: anybody who works and gets a job in this workplace,
Speaker 1: whether they belong to union or not, must pay union dudes.
Speaker 1: And in those states seven or so that have these
Speaker 1: right to work laws, that kind of provision is illegal.
Speaker 1: One of the proposals in the Biden Plan is to
Speaker 1: make it illegal for states to have right to work laws,
Speaker 1: meaning that these union security clauses will once again return
Speaker 1: to all states, and that no state will be able
Speaker 1: to have a different policy with respect to not recognizing
Speaker 1: the obligation of an employee, whether he or she is
Speaker 1: a member of the union or not, she who pay
Speaker 1: union dues. And that will be obviously a significant impact,
Speaker 1: primarily in the Midwest and in many southern states that
Speaker 1: have these right to work laws. Diversity and inclusion in
Speaker 1: the workplace have been issues for some time now. How
Speaker 1: would a Biden administration promote those policies. It's interesting I
Speaker 1: practice in California, and many of the proposals in the
Speaker 1: Biden Plans come almost directly from the laws and the
Speaker 1: policies that exist here in California. For that are or worse.
Speaker 1: One of the primary tenets of the Biden Plan is
Speaker 1: something called the Paychecks Fairness Act, which would enact on
Speaker 1: the federal level for therefore would apply to all states,
Speaker 1: a sort of supercharge bill that would address wage disparity
Speaker 1: on the basis of sex. Both California and New York
Speaker 1: already have fairly robust laws with respect to this issue,
Speaker 1: and this would again federalize that so that it would
Speaker 1: apply in all jurisdictions. What it would do, among other things,
Speaker 1: is narrow the employer defenses that would exist for explaining
Speaker 1: or trying to defend against who wage disparity claims. UH.
Speaker 1: It would also restrict employers from preventing employees who might
Speaker 1: otherwise discuss wage information. There are already our provisions about
Speaker 1: that in some statutes, but this would elevate that so
Speaker 1: that employees could discuss wage information among themselves. It would
Speaker 1: increase civil penalties or employers that violate the provisions, and
Speaker 1: also importantly, it would require employers to provide compensation data
Speaker 1: to the e o C, which is the federal anti
Speaker 1: discrimination agency. Employers would have to break down employee populations
Speaker 1: by race, sex, and national origin. Again, many of the
Speaker 1: aspects of that already exist in California and New York.
Speaker 1: Another really major and important anti discrimination civil rights provision
Speaker 1: is going to be called the Equality Act. And what
Speaker 1: this would do with prohibit discrimination on the base of
Speaker 1: sexual orientation or gender identity on the federal level. Now,
Speaker 1: by the way, there is no statutory formulation on that topic.
Speaker 1: Many many states already have anti discrimination provisions that touch
Speaker 1: on sexual orientation and gender identity. But to some extent,
Speaker 1: this proposed Act has been overtaken by events because we
Speaker 1: know you've reported in past shows of the United States
Speaker 1: Supreme Court in June decided a case called bow Stock
Speaker 1: versus Clayton County, Georgia. And in that case, the United
Speaker 1: States Supreme Court decided by interpreting the existing statutory language
Speaker 1: from titled Southern to include anti discrimination provisions that aren't
Speaker 1: expressly stated in the statute. So, to some extent, the
Speaker 1: Equality Act has become less of a major priority because
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has done a happy lifting on that
Speaker 1: already by interpreting existing law to include anti discrimination provisions
Speaker 1: based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Despite the CARES Act,
Speaker 1: a lot of employees right now are having trouble with
Speaker 1: paid sick and family leave during COVID nineteen, and there
Speaker 1: have been a lot of lawsuits filed. How would the
Speaker 1: Biden administration deal with those on a more permanent level.
Speaker 1: There is another proposed piece of legislation called the Healthy
Speaker 1: Families Act that would require employers to provide paid sickly,
Speaker 1: which again is already mandatory and telep barn in many
Speaker 1: other major cities in some other states. Specifically, the bill
Speaker 1: would require that employers for fifteen or more employees would
Speaker 1: need to provide paidsickly for employees to use for themselves
Speaker 1: in their families, and they will earn it at a
Speaker 1: rate of one hour of paid sickly for every thirty
Speaker 1: hours worked. People require employers with fewer than fifteen employees
Speaker 1: to write either that rate of paidsickly or at least
Speaker 1: fifty six hours of unpaid sickly. So again, this would
Speaker 1: federalize an initiative that already exists on a number of
Speaker 1: statute books in the state and local levels. Changes in
Speaker 1: technology will continue to eliminate jobs for many workers. You
Speaker 1: don't want to stop progress, So how would Biden deal
Speaker 1: with those kinds of changes? Among other things? If the
Speaker 1: laws that are proposed and the policies that are proposed
Speaker 1: by the potential by administration get passed. It would require
Speaker 1: employers that receive federal funds to give employees notice of
Speaker 1: technology changes in automation that might affect them. Biden would
Speaker 1: also seek to claw back certain tax benefits and public
Speaker 1: funding from companies that would offshore American jobs. Some of
Speaker 1: these is not a great deal specificity about, but that
Speaker 1: is something that clearly is contemplated as well. How much
Speaker 1: are these proposals like what California already has in law, Well,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. Some of them are provisions that have been
Speaker 1: tried in that have failed for one reason or another.
Speaker 1: For example, one of the important Democratic backed provisions, which
Speaker 1: isn't specifically stated in the Biden proposals, but which he
Speaker 1: presumably would be receptive to, involved the outlawing essentially of
Speaker 1: arbitration agreements in the employment setting, as well as those
Speaker 1: stuttings in some other contexts as well. But with respect
Speaker 1: to employment, this means that employers and employees would no
Speaker 1: longer be able to lawfully enter into arbitration agreements by
Speaker 1: which beute that might be heard now in front of
Speaker 1: an arbitrator involving discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, or whatever it
Speaker 1: may be, would have to be heard by a jury,
Speaker 1: and of course that would result in a huge number
Speaker 1: of increased claims being brought in front of juries all
Speaker 1: over the country. I think that would significantly clawed courts.
Speaker 1: But this has been again on the wish list, not
Speaker 1: of unions in this case, but on the part of
Speaker 1: the trial lawyers that represent employees, because they obviously would
Speaker 1: much prefer to be in front of a jury in
Speaker 1: most of these cases rather than in front of a
Speaker 1: retired judge or senior employment law practitioner who typically populates
Speaker 1: the arbitration ranks. And so one of the statutes that
Speaker 1: has already passed the House and has support among Democrats
Speaker 1: in the Senators something called the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act,
Speaker 1: the Fair Act, And what that would do would make
Speaker 1: pre dispute arbitration agreements illegal in California and everywhere else.
Speaker 1: I say California, because we did pass a law a
Speaker 1: year or so ago, as in New York, to do
Speaker 1: the same thing to outlaw arbitration, but those provisions came
Speaker 1: up against the federal law. The Federal Arbitration Act, and
Speaker 1: in both instances, federal courts struck down those state laws.
Speaker 1: So what this would do would federalize that rule, which
Speaker 1: is that there would no longer be any arbitration between
Speaker 1: employers and employees in these cases. Another major aspect of
Speaker 1: what some travelers have been advocating for a long time
Speaker 1: is the elimination of class action waivers, which can become
Speaker 1: fairly commonplace in California and elsewhere. One of the things
Speaker 1: that is usually a feature of an arbitration agreement is
Speaker 1: a provision that states that the employee agrees not to
Speaker 1: participate or lead a class action or a collective action
Speaker 1: against the employer. The United States Supreme Court has determined
Speaker 1: that those are legal. That rule would be repealed by
Speaker 1: something called the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. One
Speaker 1: of the provisions in that act states that class Act
Speaker 1: waivers will no longer be enforceable, meaning that employees will
Speaker 1: be free to cloud class actions against their employers and
Speaker 1: to participate in such a class action. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for being on the Bloomberg Last Show, Tony, That's Anthony
Speaker 1: on cd A partner Proskauer Rose. I'm June Grosso. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much for listening. And please tune into The Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Last Show every week night to ten pm Eastern on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio than