1
00:00:02,840 --> 00:00:07,680
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. Some complicated international law issues here.

2
00:00:07,960 --> 00:00:11,760
Speaker 1: What kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing interviews

3
00:00:11,840 --> 00:00:15,000
Speaker 1: with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is

4
00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:18,360
Speaker 1: Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Neil Devon's a

5
00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:21,239
Speaker 1: professor at William and Mary Law School, and analysis of

6
00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:25,360
Speaker 1: important legal issues cases and headlock. Is this essentially the

7
00:00:25,360 --> 00:00:28,840
Speaker 1: fifth circuit haunting he has presided over a so called

8
00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:32,080
Speaker 1: hot bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law with June

9
00:00:32,080 --> 00:00:40,680
Speaker 1: Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio.

10
00:00:40,720 --> 00:00:43,720
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Shorts, lived in for June Brosso. We begin

11
00:00:43,800 --> 00:00:48,280
Speaker 1: with privacy and Google. What exactly is Google tracking? And

12
00:00:48,520 --> 00:00:53,440
Speaker 1: when a lawsuit filed in claims incognito mode on the

13
00:00:53,520 --> 00:00:58,360
Speaker 1: popular Google Chrome browser potentially is misleading users. The company

14
00:00:58,360 --> 00:01:03,000
Speaker 1: says privacy disclosures make clear that private browsing mode doesn't

15
00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:09,280
Speaker 1: make activities invisible online. Now Alphabet Ceodchai will have to

16
00:01:09,319 --> 00:01:13,319
Speaker 1: face hours of questioning in a California court. Joining us

17
00:01:13,360 --> 00:01:18,240
Speaker 1: now is Bloomberg Industry Group reporter Andrea Vittorio. Her story

18
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:23,200
Speaker 1: in the terminal headline. Google's Sundarachai ordered to answer questions

19
00:01:23,240 --> 00:01:27,840
Speaker 1: about incognito mode. This is a California federal court correct

20
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:31,720
Speaker 1: tell us what's going on here, Andrew yes, m consumers

21
00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:36,399
Speaker 1: have to Google over incognito mode, which is m a

22
00:01:36,440 --> 00:01:40,440
Speaker 1: setting on their web browser Chrome where um people can

23
00:01:40,480 --> 00:01:43,080
Speaker 1: turn it on to try and make their activity private.

24
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:46,480
Speaker 1: The lawsuit claims that it's not as private as people

25
00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 1: think it is. Google describes it as you know, when

26
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:53,000
Speaker 1: you're incognito, you're not quite invisible online. But the idea

27
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:56,480
Speaker 1: is that other people who use your who share your device,

28
00:01:56,520 --> 00:01:59,440
Speaker 1: wouldn't see your activity, but your activity online could still

29
00:01:59,480 --> 00:02:02,680
Speaker 1: be visible to the websites that you visit. So there

30
00:02:02,680 --> 00:02:06,920
Speaker 1: has been some consumer confusion about what this kind of

31
00:02:06,920 --> 00:02:10,600
Speaker 1: private browsing actually means. When I'm on this particular well

32
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:14,399
Speaker 1: bred web browsing mode, I can just select this. And

33
00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:17,320
Speaker 1: you're saying that the assumption is that most consumers as well.

34
00:02:17,360 --> 00:02:20,880
Speaker 1: Incognito means well, nobody knows I'm there, right yeah, that

35
00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:23,200
Speaker 1: I can search whatever I want and it will be

36
00:02:23,240 --> 00:02:26,560
Speaker 1: tracking me. But there is a sort of a splash

37
00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:29,000
Speaker 1: stream that comes up when you turn on incovenati mode.

38
00:02:29,000 --> 00:02:33,600
Speaker 1: And Google says that's where they just close to users that, um,

39
00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:36,160
Speaker 1: this is what it actually means, and so they shouldn't

40
00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:39,520
Speaker 1: be surprised that it's not quite as private as they

41
00:02:39,520 --> 00:02:43,720
Speaker 1: think it is. But what the lawsuit is debating correct, Okay,

42
00:02:43,720 --> 00:02:46,160
Speaker 1: so what's the problem here? Now? This lawsuit was filed

43
00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:51,520
Speaker 1: in June of what are they arguing? Basically that Google

44
00:02:51,720 --> 00:02:56,600
Speaker 1: is breaking its privacy promises to consumers by tracking them

45
00:02:56,760 --> 00:02:59,360
Speaker 1: more than they think they were. So there's some claims

46
00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:03,520
Speaker 1: brought if they under like California law and like contract law. Um,

47
00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:08,799
Speaker 1: just sort of challenging this practice. Talking with ANDREWA. Vittorio,

48
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:11,400
Speaker 1: reporter with the Bloomberg Industry Group, her story on the

49
00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:15,080
Speaker 1: terminal Google's of Touch, I ordered to answer questions about

50
00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:19,920
Speaker 1: incognito mode. What type of information, uh, you know, is

51
00:03:19,960 --> 00:03:25,120
Speaker 1: Google retaining here when folks are using this this Chrome browser.

52
00:03:26,720 --> 00:03:28,800
Speaker 1: It seems like it would be anything that you type

53
00:03:28,800 --> 00:03:32,919
Speaker 1: into your browser, basically like what you're searching, what websites

54
00:03:32,960 --> 00:03:37,520
Speaker 1: are visiting. I think websites that are that have Google

55
00:03:37,560 --> 00:03:42,600
Speaker 1: Analytics uh imbedded into them could also be collecting information

56
00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:46,640
Speaker 1: um about like your shopping habits or whatever it is

57
00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:51,480
Speaker 1: you're doing online. Google obviously didn't want to put up

58
00:03:51,520 --> 00:04:00,840
Speaker 1: their CEO. However, this federal court obviously disagreed UH speak

59
00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:06,240
Speaker 1: to us about that controversy. There has been some back

60
00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:10,880
Speaker 1: and force lately over the evidence gathering stage of this lawsuit.

61
00:04:10,960 --> 00:04:14,760
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of internal Google documents that were

62
00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:18,279
Speaker 1: shared with the lawyers for the Consumers, and they've been

63
00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:22,839
Speaker 1: UM wanting to ask questions of some of the people

64
00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:26,839
Speaker 1: who UM are mentioned in the documents. And I think

65
00:04:26,839 --> 00:04:30,719
Speaker 1: they've talked to some UH lower level Google employees already,

66
00:04:30,760 --> 00:04:35,040
Speaker 1: but now they've started asking to move up the perfect hierarchy.

67
00:04:35,160 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 1: And recently the Consumers lawyers got permission to question Google's

68
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:46,680
Speaker 1: chief marketing officer about Incongnito's branding and now UM just

69
00:04:46,760 --> 00:04:50,239
Speaker 1: this week they got permission from the court to question

70
00:04:50,320 --> 00:04:54,080
Speaker 1: the CEO. M So, tell me what does that mean,

71
00:04:54,120 --> 00:04:58,039
Speaker 1: what happens next, and how significant a legal victory is

72
00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:02,400
Speaker 1: this Next the Consumers lawyers will get to sit down

73
00:05:02,440 --> 00:05:05,640
Speaker 1: with the UM executives that they want to question and

74
00:05:06,160 --> 00:05:10,760
Speaker 1: just have UM an opportunity to go beyond what they've

75
00:05:10,839 --> 00:05:15,520
Speaker 1: learned from the documents so far, and this will create

76
00:05:15,960 --> 00:05:20,320
Speaker 1: a written testimony that could then become part of the lawsuits.

77
00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:24,520
Speaker 1: Mhm uh and basically, where do you see this going?

78
00:05:24,640 --> 00:05:26,720
Speaker 1: I mean, this is it feels like we've been debating

79
00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:30,320
Speaker 1: this topic about you know, um privacy with with the

80
00:05:30,880 --> 00:05:34,640
Speaker 1: you know these companies for a while. Now, UM, what

81
00:05:34,839 --> 00:05:38,360
Speaker 1: is this latest turn tell us about what's going on here?

82
00:05:40,000 --> 00:05:44,640
Speaker 1: I think it's another example of consumers who are having

83
00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:49,320
Speaker 1: a hard time understanding privacy disclosures UM and trying to

84
00:05:49,360 --> 00:05:53,440
Speaker 1: figure out what it means them practically. So there have

85
00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:57,080
Speaker 1: been a lot of lawsuits in this vein lately. They

86
00:05:57,080 --> 00:06:00,680
Speaker 1: seem to end up in settlements if they may get

87
00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:06,359
Speaker 1: past the early efforts by the company's to get rid

88
00:06:06,400 --> 00:06:09,720
Speaker 1: of the lawsuits. So it seems like maybe we would

89
00:06:09,720 --> 00:06:12,960
Speaker 1: be headed in that direction here. Yeah, okay, So do

90
00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:16,680
Speaker 1: we know when the CEO will be subject to this questioning?

91
00:06:16,680 --> 00:06:18,960
Speaker 1: And I guess in the same the same idea here,

92
00:06:19,080 --> 00:06:24,440
Speaker 1: um legally, what happens next? I'm not sure if there's

93
00:06:24,440 --> 00:06:28,760
Speaker 1: a schedule for the questioning of the CEO, but they're

94
00:06:28,800 --> 00:06:32,320
Speaker 1: still sort of in that phase of getting more information

95
00:06:32,720 --> 00:06:35,560
Speaker 1: um for the lawsuit, and then I guess that will

96
00:06:35,560 --> 00:06:40,640
Speaker 1: see into the judges next decision on where this case goes.

97
00:06:41,080 --> 00:06:44,320
Speaker 1: Andrea Vittorio. She's a reporter with the Bloomberg Industry Group.

98
00:06:44,360 --> 00:06:46,680
Speaker 1: We appreciate you taking time to join us today on

99
00:06:46,760 --> 00:06:49,960
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg law Thank you for having me a headline

100
00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:55,239
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg terminal. Activist Starboard discloses Go Daddy steak

101
00:06:55,320 --> 00:06:58,760
Speaker 1: push us for changes. Story written by Bloomberg reporter Scott

102
00:06:58,800 --> 00:07:02,160
Speaker 1: de Vot. Activists vestor Starboard Value disclosed a stake in

103
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:05,120
Speaker 1: a website services company, Go Daddy, Inc. And said it

104
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:08,440
Speaker 1: may push for changes to improve the stocks performance. The

105
00:07:08,520 --> 00:07:11,840
Speaker 1: New York based hedge Funds had a regulatory filing that

106
00:07:11,920 --> 00:07:14,400
Speaker 1: had held a six point five percent stake in the

107
00:07:14,440 --> 00:07:19,200
Speaker 1: technology company, which it believes is undervalued. Now. Starboard uh

108
00:07:19,400 --> 00:07:21,960
Speaker 1: said in the filing that it may meet with management

109
00:07:22,440 --> 00:07:25,720
Speaker 1: and the board is part of the investment to discuss

110
00:07:25,760 --> 00:07:30,760
Speaker 1: ways to improve shareholder value, including potential board and operational changes,

111
00:07:30,800 --> 00:07:35,200
Speaker 1: as well as business combinations. Representative for Go Daddy didn't

112
00:07:35,200 --> 00:07:38,880
Speaker 1: immediately respond to a quest for comment. Now shares and

113
00:07:38,920 --> 00:07:42,440
Speaker 1: Go Daddy had fallen eight point two percent a year

114
00:07:42,480 --> 00:07:46,200
Speaker 1: to date, giving the company's market valuation of roughly twelve

115
00:07:46,240 --> 00:07:50,440
Speaker 1: point seven billion. It shares rows seven percent to eighty

116
00:07:50,440 --> 00:07:54,280
Speaker 1: one dollars a share on Monday. Starboard has a history

117
00:07:54,280 --> 00:07:57,640
Speaker 1: of pushing for changes at companies in the technology sector.

118
00:07:58,120 --> 00:08:00,480
Speaker 1: To explore this a little bit further, we want to

119
00:08:00,520 --> 00:08:03,000
Speaker 1: bring in an expert in the field. UH. This is

120
00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:06,320
Speaker 1: Kai leaka Fette. He is a partner in the law

121
00:08:06,400 --> 00:08:10,600
Speaker 1: firm Siddeley Austin UH and he co chairs Sidley's shareholder

122
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:15,480
Speaker 1: activism practice. Thank you Kai for joining us. Uh. Let's

123
00:08:15,480 --> 00:08:19,040
Speaker 1: start a little bit with what happened. Starboards a thirteen

124
00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:22,000
Speaker 1: D filing, which means they're basically buying more than five

125
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:25,520
Speaker 1: percent of the equity here is noteworthy because the activist

126
00:08:25,560 --> 00:08:28,120
Speaker 1: eight hundred million dollars is one of the largest stakes

127
00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:32,160
Speaker 1: that's ever taken. Are there any regulatory hurdles for an

128
00:08:32,200 --> 00:08:35,560
Speaker 1: activist to clear when they take such a large position.

129
00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:38,880
Speaker 1: That's a great question, and thanks for having me on

130
00:08:38,920 --> 00:08:42,360
Speaker 1: your program, Joe. Yes, there are a number of regulatory

131
00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:46,560
Speaker 1: hurdles for one activist to address when they take such

132
00:08:46,559 --> 00:08:50,600
Speaker 1: a big stake. UH. The one one fighting regime is

133
00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:53,960
Speaker 1: with the SEC and they're already cleared it by fighting

134
00:08:53,960 --> 00:08:56,520
Speaker 1: a so called ski or thirt D. But you're required

135
00:08:56,520 --> 00:08:59,680
Speaker 1: to file when you have a five percent or larger

136
00:08:59,720 --> 00:09:02,800
Speaker 1: stay in the public company. But they are also anti

137
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:08,520
Speaker 1: trust considerations. When an activist acquired a stake that is

138
00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:11,720
Speaker 1: worth more than ninety two million dollars in the public company,

139
00:09:11,760 --> 00:09:15,319
Speaker 1: they also need to make a filing. This um, this

140
00:09:15,440 --> 00:09:19,560
Speaker 1: the FTC and the d o J commentator trust perspective

141
00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:24,040
Speaker 1: to get cleared. M HM talking with kai Lecafette. He

142
00:09:24,160 --> 00:09:28,360
Speaker 1: is a partner with Sidley Austin law firm in New York,

143
00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:32,640
Speaker 1: fifth largest in the country. All right, um, Now, one

144
00:09:32,679 --> 00:09:37,000
Speaker 1: of the interesting things is that Starboard apparently gave the

145
00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:41,920
Speaker 1: scoop to the media before filing U that d form.

146
00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:47,800
Speaker 1: Are there any legal issues with that maneuver? It is.

147
00:09:47,920 --> 00:09:50,120
Speaker 1: It is a little bit of a gray area of

148
00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:53,760
Speaker 1: the law, but that is something that activists do frequently,

149
00:09:53,920 --> 00:09:57,040
Speaker 1: that they give a scoop to one media outlet, very

150
00:09:57,080 --> 00:10:00,280
Speaker 1: often actually your very own Scott Devote from bloom Book,

151
00:10:01,080 --> 00:10:04,959
Speaker 1: and only afterwards an hour later, thirty minutes later, or

152
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:08,520
Speaker 1: sometimes even five minutes later, they issued their press release

153
00:10:08,880 --> 00:10:13,079
Speaker 1: or makes the as you see filing. The SEC has

154
00:10:13,120 --> 00:10:16,679
Speaker 1: not taken any any action against this kind of maneuver

155
00:10:16,920 --> 00:10:19,240
Speaker 1: in the past, and I doubt that the SEC is

156
00:10:19,280 --> 00:10:22,440
Speaker 1: focused on this, but it is interesting that activists like

157
00:10:22,559 --> 00:10:26,400
Speaker 1: to do that. M Now, the stock traded up significantly

158
00:10:26,440 --> 00:10:30,319
Speaker 1: following the news. What is the significance of this stock

159
00:10:30,360 --> 00:10:37,920
Speaker 1: price increase legally or otherwise, Well, it shows me that

160
00:10:39,520 --> 00:10:42,960
Speaker 1: the activists probably did not give a hatch up to

161
00:10:43,200 --> 00:10:47,560
Speaker 1: other arts and hatch funds investors, because if you have

162
00:10:47,720 --> 00:10:51,840
Speaker 1: such a large right in the stock price following following

163
00:10:51,920 --> 00:10:57,000
Speaker 1: the news, it means that no one else or few

164
00:10:57,640 --> 00:11:04,240
Speaker 1: outside the activists knew beforehand that this would would would

165
00:11:04,640 --> 00:11:09,160
Speaker 1: what happened. So from a legal perspective, it probably clears

166
00:11:09,160 --> 00:11:14,000
Speaker 1: the activists from any wrongdoing. Um. It is also interesting

167
00:11:14,080 --> 00:11:18,320
Speaker 1: though that a lot of a lot of outside advisors

168
00:11:18,480 --> 00:11:24,079
Speaker 1: wead more into the stock price increase when when an

169
00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:28,080
Speaker 1: activists go public, a lot of a lot of outside

170
00:11:28,080 --> 00:11:31,920
Speaker 1: observers fear that it's a stock price increases significantly that

171
00:11:32,080 --> 00:11:35,880
Speaker 1: this is a core di validation of the activist thesis.

172
00:11:36,200 --> 00:11:39,040
Speaker 1: Un a little bit skeptical of that argument. For me,

173
00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:41,120
Speaker 1: it just means that there are a lot of ups

174
00:11:41,160 --> 00:11:44,360
Speaker 1: and hetch funds preing into the stock and they oftentimes

175
00:11:44,440 --> 00:11:49,920
Speaker 1: just follow the name without any any larger investigation as

176
00:11:49,960 --> 00:11:52,520
Speaker 1: to whether or not the activist thesis, which is not

177
00:11:52,559 --> 00:11:56,880
Speaker 1: even publicly disclosed in our case, has any validity or not?

178
00:11:58,000 --> 00:12:00,200
Speaker 1: And what are the typical next legal steps for were

179
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:07,600
Speaker 1: the activists after filing this schedule d well. Typically activists

180
00:12:07,640 --> 00:12:11,560
Speaker 1: start engaging with the public with the company privately, not

181
00:12:11,679 --> 00:12:14,719
Speaker 1: in public, after they file a schedule thirt in d

182
00:12:15,480 --> 00:12:17,640
Speaker 1: But at some point or another they have to make

183
00:12:17,679 --> 00:12:20,360
Speaker 1: a decision whether they put up or shot up. That

184
00:12:20,600 --> 00:12:24,640
Speaker 1: is um meaning whether or not they run a proxy

185
00:12:24,720 --> 00:12:29,640
Speaker 1: contest to replace all or a portion of the board

186
00:12:29,679 --> 00:12:34,080
Speaker 1: of the target company. And at most companies, there are

187
00:12:34,840 --> 00:12:39,880
Speaker 1: certain deadlines to observe when making a step of running

188
00:12:39,880 --> 00:12:43,400
Speaker 1: a proxy contest. It's called the nomination deadline. The nomination

189
00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:47,679
Speaker 1: deadline at most companies is somewhere between February and March,

190
00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:50,840
Speaker 1: So that would be the next legal step in this

191
00:12:50,920 --> 00:12:55,559
Speaker 1: kind of situation for an activist. H Ki Leakafet is

192
00:12:55,559 --> 00:12:59,080
Speaker 1: our guest. He's a partner at Siddeley Austin in New York.

193
00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 1: He also court or Siddley's Shareholder Activism a practice. Are

194
00:13:04,360 --> 00:13:07,080
Speaker 1: there any illegal defenses a company can use against an

195
00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:12,080
Speaker 1: activist after the filing of a schedule thirteen day that's

196
00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:15,520
Speaker 1: a question I always get from clients, and many of

197
00:13:15,520 --> 00:13:19,480
Speaker 1: my clients would like to take the activists to court,

198
00:13:20,040 --> 00:13:23,360
Speaker 1: send them to jail, get them, beat them up. But

199
00:13:23,520 --> 00:13:26,480
Speaker 1: the unfortunate trous is that they are a few legal

200
00:13:26,559 --> 00:13:32,880
Speaker 1: defenses that have an immediate effect against an activist. One

201
00:13:33,000 --> 00:13:35,800
Speaker 1: of the defenses that a lot of companies explore is

202
00:13:35,840 --> 00:13:38,640
Speaker 1: whether or not to adopt a so called poison pill.

203
00:13:38,760 --> 00:13:41,760
Speaker 1: A poison pill, it's a legal instrument that allows a

204
00:13:41,840 --> 00:13:47,360
Speaker 1: company to limit the maximum amount of shares any investor

205
00:13:47,480 --> 00:13:50,360
Speaker 1: can buy. Typically that it's a ten or fifteen percent

206
00:13:50,480 --> 00:13:54,760
Speaker 1: threshold of the outstanding shares. So that's something a company

207
00:13:54,800 --> 00:13:57,920
Speaker 1: can do. However, the poison piler, just as many other pills,

208
00:13:58,000 --> 00:14:00,880
Speaker 1: has certain side effects, and the side effect of a

209
00:14:00,960 --> 00:14:04,160
Speaker 1: poison pail as while the board can do that without

210
00:14:04,200 --> 00:14:08,080
Speaker 1: share old or approval, a lot of shareholders view poison

211
00:14:08,120 --> 00:14:13,400
Speaker 1: pods relatively negatively and tend to vote against the incumbent

212
00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:18,600
Speaker 1: board unless the board can demonstrate a very good justification

213
00:14:18,720 --> 00:14:21,240
Speaker 1: for the adoption of the poison fill. So it is

214
00:14:21,360 --> 00:14:25,800
Speaker 1: a legal maneuver that is sometimes used. Sometimes it makes

215
00:14:25,840 --> 00:14:28,040
Speaker 1: sense to use it, but in a lot of cases,

216
00:14:28,920 --> 00:14:33,760
Speaker 1: the the the disadvantages at weigh outweigh the advantages of

217
00:14:33,840 --> 00:14:36,840
Speaker 1: the mm hmmm. A final question for me, so, how

218
00:14:36,880 --> 00:14:40,240
Speaker 1: do you size up this activist investor, Starboard value and

219
00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:44,080
Speaker 1: the actions they took as it relates to Go Daddy. Well,

220
00:14:44,120 --> 00:14:47,880
Speaker 1: I cannot speak to Go Daddy, but generally speaking, uh,

221
00:14:48,400 --> 00:14:52,040
Speaker 1: Starboard is one of the most well known activist investors,

222
00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:55,200
Speaker 1: either the number one of the number two activist investors

223
00:14:55,240 --> 00:14:58,680
Speaker 1: in the world. They have a lot of credibility in

224
00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:02,640
Speaker 1: the market. They a a lot of capital at the disposal.

225
00:15:02,680 --> 00:15:06,600
Speaker 1: They have very sophisticated advisers, so when they decide to

226
00:15:06,640 --> 00:15:11,120
Speaker 1: go public against the company, it's typically it's typically a

227
00:15:11,120 --> 00:15:15,880
Speaker 1: sign of confidence on their end that they got it right.

228
00:15:16,560 --> 00:15:20,560
Speaker 1: K Kaylee Kaffett, he is a partner, said Lee Austin

229
00:15:20,760 --> 00:15:23,160
Speaker 1: there in New York City. Appreciate you taking time and

230
00:15:23,240 --> 00:15:26,800
Speaker 1: joining us on Bloomberg Law. Thank you for having me.

231
00:15:27,440 --> 00:15:29,720
Speaker 1: That's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

232
00:15:29,760 --> 00:15:32,360
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

233
00:15:32,400 --> 00:15:37,680
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcast, Spotify,

234
00:15:37,760 --> 00:15:43,440
Speaker 1: and on www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

235
00:15:43,640 --> 00:15:46,440
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

236
00:15:46,520 --> 00:15:49,040
Speaker 1: night at ten pm Wall Street Time. The show is

237
00:15:49,080 --> 00:15:52,360
Speaker 1: produced by Eric Mallow for Bloomberg Radio. I'm Joe Shortsley.

238
00:15:52,480 --> 00:15:54,520
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening and remember the tune into the

239
00:15:54,520 --> 00:15:57,520
Speaker 1: next edition of Bloomberg Law right here on Bloomberg Radio

240
00:16:00,160 --> 00:16:00,200
Speaker 1: b