WEBVTT - Google's Incognito Mode And Activist Investor Laws

0:00:02.840 --> 0:00:07.680
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law. Some complicated international law issues here.

0:00:07.960 --> 0:00:11.760
<v Speaker 1>What kind of docket is Chief Justice Roberts facing interviews

0:00:11.840 --> 0:00:15.000
<v Speaker 1>with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts. Joining me is

0:00:15.000 --> 0:00:18.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Neil Devon's a

0:00:18.360 --> 0:00:21.239
<v Speaker 1>professor at William and Mary Law School, and analysis of

0:00:21.320 --> 0:00:25.360
<v Speaker 1>important legal issues cases and headlock. Is this essentially the

0:00:25.360 --> 0:00:28.840
<v Speaker 1>fifth circuit haunting he has presided over a so called

0:00:28.880 --> 0:00:32.080
<v Speaker 1>hot bench at the Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law with June

0:00:32.080 --> 0:00:40.680
<v Speaker 1>Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Welcome to Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:40.720 --> 0:00:43.720
<v Speaker 1>I'm Joe Shorts, lived in for June Brosso. We begin

0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:48.280
<v Speaker 1>with privacy and Google. What exactly is Google tracking? And

0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:53.440
<v Speaker 1>when a lawsuit filed in claims incognito mode on the

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:58.360
<v Speaker 1>popular Google Chrome browser potentially is misleading users. The company

0:00:58.360 --> 0:01:03.000
<v Speaker 1>says privacy disclosures make clear that private browsing mode doesn't

0:01:03.040 --> 0:01:09.280
<v Speaker 1>make activities invisible online. Now Alphabet Ceodchai will have to

0:01:09.319 --> 0:01:13.319
<v Speaker 1>face hours of questioning in a California court. Joining us

0:01:13.360 --> 0:01:18.240
<v Speaker 1>now is Bloomberg Industry Group reporter Andrea Vittorio. Her story

0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:23.200
<v Speaker 1>in the terminal headline. Google's Sundarachai ordered to answer questions

0:01:23.240 --> 0:01:27.840
<v Speaker 1>about incognito mode. This is a California federal court correct

0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 1>tell us what's going on here, Andrew yes, m consumers

0:01:31.800 --> 0:01:36.399
<v Speaker 1>have to Google over incognito mode, which is m a

0:01:36.440 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 1>setting on their web browser Chrome where um people can

0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:43.080
<v Speaker 1>turn it on to try and make their activity private.

0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:46.480
<v Speaker 1>The lawsuit claims that it's not as private as people

0:01:46.520 --> 0:01:48.960
<v Speaker 1>think it is. Google describes it as you know, when

0:01:48.960 --> 0:01:53.000
<v Speaker 1>you're incognito, you're not quite invisible online. But the idea

0:01:53.040 --> 0:01:56.480
<v Speaker 1>is that other people who use your who share your device,

0:01:56.520 --> 0:01:59.440
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't see your activity, but your activity online could still

0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:02.680
<v Speaker 1>be visible to the websites that you visit. So there

0:02:02.680 --> 0:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>has been some consumer confusion about what this kind of

0:02:06.920 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 1>private browsing actually means. When I'm on this particular well

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:14.399
<v Speaker 1>bred web browsing mode, I can just select this. And

0:02:14.720 --> 0:02:17.320
<v Speaker 1>you're saying that the assumption is that most consumers as well.

0:02:17.360 --> 0:02:20.880
<v Speaker 1>Incognito means well, nobody knows I'm there, right yeah, that

0:02:21.040 --> 0:02:23.200
<v Speaker 1>I can search whatever I want and it will be

0:02:23.240 --> 0:02:26.560
<v Speaker 1>tracking me. But there is a sort of a splash

0:02:26.600 --> 0:02:29.000
<v Speaker 1>stream that comes up when you turn on incovenati mode.

0:02:29.000 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 1>And Google says that's where they just close to users that, um,

0:02:33.639 --> 0:02:36.160
<v Speaker 1>this is what it actually means, and so they shouldn't

0:02:36.200 --> 0:02:39.520
<v Speaker 1>be surprised that it's not quite as private as they

0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:43.720
<v Speaker 1>think it is. But what the lawsuit is debating correct, Okay,

0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:46.160
<v Speaker 1>so what's the problem here? Now? This lawsuit was filed

0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:51.520
<v Speaker 1>in June of what are they arguing? Basically that Google

0:02:51.720 --> 0:02:56.600
<v Speaker 1>is breaking its privacy promises to consumers by tracking them

0:02:56.760 --> 0:02:59.360
<v Speaker 1>more than they think they were. So there's some claims

0:02:59.400 --> 0:03:03.520
<v Speaker 1>brought if they under like California law and like contract law. Um,

0:03:03.560 --> 0:03:08.799
<v Speaker 1>just sort of challenging this practice. Talking with ANDREWA. Vittorio,

0:03:09.200 --> 0:03:11.400
<v Speaker 1>reporter with the Bloomberg Industry Group, her story on the

0:03:11.480 --> 0:03:15.080
<v Speaker 1>terminal Google's of Touch, I ordered to answer questions about

0:03:15.120 --> 0:03:19.920
<v Speaker 1>incognito mode. What type of information, uh, you know, is

0:03:19.960 --> 0:03:25.120
<v Speaker 1>Google retaining here when folks are using this this Chrome browser.

0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:28.800
<v Speaker 1>It seems like it would be anything that you type

0:03:28.800 --> 0:03:32.919
<v Speaker 1>into your browser, basically like what you're searching, what websites

0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:37.520
<v Speaker 1>are visiting. I think websites that are that have Google

0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 1>Analytics uh imbedded into them could also be collecting information

0:03:43.400 --> 0:03:46.640
<v Speaker 1>um about like your shopping habits or whatever it is

0:03:46.680 --> 0:03:51.480
<v Speaker 1>you're doing online. Google obviously didn't want to put up

0:03:51.520 --> 0:04:00.840
<v Speaker 1>their CEO. However, this federal court obviously disagreed UH speak

0:04:00.840 --> 0:04:06.240
<v Speaker 1>to us about that controversy. There has been some back

0:04:06.280 --> 0:04:10.880
<v Speaker 1>and force lately over the evidence gathering stage of this lawsuit.

0:04:10.960 --> 0:04:14.760
<v Speaker 1>There's been a lot of internal Google documents that were

0:04:14.800 --> 0:04:18.279
<v Speaker 1>shared with the lawyers for the Consumers, and they've been

0:04:18.680 --> 0:04:22.839
<v Speaker 1>UM wanting to ask questions of some of the people

0:04:22.920 --> 0:04:26.839
<v Speaker 1>who UM are mentioned in the documents. And I think

0:04:26.839 --> 0:04:30.719
<v Speaker 1>they've talked to some UH lower level Google employees already,

0:04:30.760 --> 0:04:35.040
<v Speaker 1>but now they've started asking to move up the perfect hierarchy.

0:04:35.160 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>And recently the Consumers lawyers got permission to question Google's

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:46.680
<v Speaker 1>chief marketing officer about Incongnito's branding and now UM just

0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:50.239
<v Speaker 1>this week they got permission from the court to question

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:54.080
<v Speaker 1>the CEO. M So, tell me what does that mean,

0:04:54.120 --> 0:04:58.039
<v Speaker 1>what happens next, and how significant a legal victory is

0:04:58.080 --> 0:05:02.400
<v Speaker 1>this Next the Consumers lawyers will get to sit down

0:05:02.440 --> 0:05:05.640
<v Speaker 1>with the UM executives that they want to question and

0:05:06.160 --> 0:05:10.760
<v Speaker 1>just have UM an opportunity to go beyond what they've

0:05:10.839 --> 0:05:15.520
<v Speaker 1>learned from the documents so far, and this will create

0:05:15.960 --> 0:05:20.320
<v Speaker 1>a written testimony that could then become part of the lawsuits.

0:05:20.920 --> 0:05:24.520
<v Speaker 1>Mhm uh and basically, where do you see this going?

0:05:24.640 --> 0:05:26.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean, this is it feels like we've been debating

0:05:26.720 --> 0:05:30.320
<v Speaker 1>this topic about you know, um privacy with with the

0:05:30.880 --> 0:05:34.640
<v Speaker 1>you know these companies for a while. Now, UM, what

0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:38.360
<v Speaker 1>is this latest turn tell us about what's going on here?

0:05:40.000 --> 0:05:44.640
<v Speaker 1>I think it's another example of consumers who are having

0:05:44.680 --> 0:05:49.320
<v Speaker 1>a hard time understanding privacy disclosures UM and trying to

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:53.440
<v Speaker 1>figure out what it means them practically. So there have

0:05:53.480 --> 0:05:57.080
<v Speaker 1>been a lot of lawsuits in this vein lately. They

0:05:57.080 --> 0:06:00.680
<v Speaker 1>seem to end up in settlements if they may get

0:06:00.760 --> 0:06:06.359
<v Speaker 1>past the early efforts by the company's to get rid

0:06:06.400 --> 0:06:09.720
<v Speaker 1>of the lawsuits. So it seems like maybe we would

0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:12.960
<v Speaker 1>be headed in that direction here. Yeah, okay, So do

0:06:13.040 --> 0:06:16.680
<v Speaker 1>we know when the CEO will be subject to this questioning?

0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:18.960
<v Speaker 1>And I guess in the same the same idea here,

0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:24.440
<v Speaker 1>um legally, what happens next? I'm not sure if there's

0:06:24.440 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 1>a schedule for the questioning of the CEO, but they're

0:06:28.800 --> 0:06:32.320
<v Speaker 1>still sort of in that phase of getting more information

0:06:32.720 --> 0:06:35.560
<v Speaker 1>um for the lawsuit, and then I guess that will

0:06:35.560 --> 0:06:40.640
<v Speaker 1>see into the judges next decision on where this case goes.

0:06:41.080 --> 0:06:44.320
<v Speaker 1>Andrea Vittorio. She's a reporter with the Bloomberg Industry Group.

0:06:44.360 --> 0:06:46.680
<v Speaker 1>We appreciate you taking time to join us today on

0:06:46.760 --> 0:06:49.960
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg law Thank you for having me a headline

0:06:49.960 --> 0:06:55.239
<v Speaker 1>on the Bloomberg terminal. Activist Starboard discloses Go Daddy steak

0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:58.760
<v Speaker 1>push us for changes. Story written by Bloomberg reporter Scott

0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:02.160
<v Speaker 1>de Vot. Activists vestor Starboard Value disclosed a stake in

0:07:02.200 --> 0:07:05.120
<v Speaker 1>a website services company, Go Daddy, Inc. And said it

0:07:05.160 --> 0:07:08.440
<v Speaker 1>may push for changes to improve the stocks performance. The

0:07:08.520 --> 0:07:11.840
<v Speaker 1>New York based hedge Funds had a regulatory filing that

0:07:11.920 --> 0:07:14.400
<v Speaker 1>had held a six point five percent stake in the

0:07:14.440 --> 0:07:19.200
<v Speaker 1>technology company, which it believes is undervalued. Now. Starboard uh

0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:21.960
<v Speaker 1>said in the filing that it may meet with management

0:07:22.440 --> 0:07:25.720
<v Speaker 1>and the board is part of the investment to discuss

0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:30.760
<v Speaker 1>ways to improve shareholder value, including potential board and operational changes,

0:07:30.800 --> 0:07:35.200
<v Speaker 1>as well as business combinations. Representative for Go Daddy didn't

0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:38.880
<v Speaker 1>immediately respond to a quest for comment. Now shares and

0:07:38.920 --> 0:07:42.440
<v Speaker 1>Go Daddy had fallen eight point two percent a year

0:07:42.480 --> 0:07:46.200
<v Speaker 1>to date, giving the company's market valuation of roughly twelve

0:07:46.240 --> 0:07:50.440
<v Speaker 1>point seven billion. It shares rows seven percent to eighty

0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:54.280
<v Speaker 1>one dollars a share on Monday. Starboard has a history

0:07:54.280 --> 0:07:57.640
<v Speaker 1>of pushing for changes at companies in the technology sector.

0:07:58.120 --> 0:08:00.480
<v Speaker 1>To explore this a little bit further, we want to

0:08:00.520 --> 0:08:03.000
<v Speaker 1>bring in an expert in the field. UH. This is

0:08:03.080 --> 0:08:06.320
<v Speaker 1>Kai leaka Fette. He is a partner in the law

0:08:06.400 --> 0:08:10.600
<v Speaker 1>firm Siddeley Austin UH and he co chairs Sidley's shareholder

0:08:10.840 --> 0:08:15.480
<v Speaker 1>activism practice. Thank you Kai for joining us. Uh. Let's

0:08:15.480 --> 0:08:19.040
<v Speaker 1>start a little bit with what happened. Starboards a thirteen

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:22.000
<v Speaker 1>D filing, which means they're basically buying more than five

0:08:22.000 --> 0:08:25.520
<v Speaker 1>percent of the equity here is noteworthy because the activist

0:08:25.560 --> 0:08:28.120
<v Speaker 1>eight hundred million dollars is one of the largest stakes

0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:32.160
<v Speaker 1>that's ever taken. Are there any regulatory hurdles for an

0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:35.560
<v Speaker 1>activist to clear when they take such a large position.

0:08:37.080 --> 0:08:38.880
<v Speaker 1>That's a great question, and thanks for having me on

0:08:38.920 --> 0:08:42.360
<v Speaker 1>your program, Joe. Yes, there are a number of regulatory

0:08:42.559 --> 0:08:46.560
<v Speaker 1>hurdles for one activist to address when they take such

0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:50.600
<v Speaker 1>a big stake. UH. The one one fighting regime is

0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:53.960
<v Speaker 1>with the SEC and they're already cleared it by fighting

0:08:53.960 --> 0:08:56.520
<v Speaker 1>a so called ski or thirt D. But you're required

0:08:56.520 --> 0:08:59.680
<v Speaker 1>to file when you have a five percent or larger

0:08:59.720 --> 0:09:02.800
<v Speaker 1>stay in the public company. But they are also anti

0:09:02.880 --> 0:09:08.520
<v Speaker 1>trust considerations. When an activist acquired a stake that is

0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:11.720
<v Speaker 1>worth more than ninety two million dollars in the public company,

0:09:11.760 --> 0:09:15.319
<v Speaker 1>they also need to make a filing. This um, this

0:09:15.440 --> 0:09:19.560
<v Speaker 1>the FTC and the d o J commentator trust perspective

0:09:19.640 --> 0:09:24.040
<v Speaker 1>to get cleared. M HM talking with kai Lecafette. He

0:09:24.160 --> 0:09:28.360
<v Speaker 1>is a partner with Sidley Austin law firm in New York,

0:09:28.640 --> 0:09:32.640
<v Speaker 1>fifth largest in the country. All right, um, Now, one

0:09:32.679 --> 0:09:37.000
<v Speaker 1>of the interesting things is that Starboard apparently gave the

0:09:37.080 --> 0:09:41.920
<v Speaker 1>scoop to the media before filing U that d form.

0:09:42.000 --> 0:09:47.800
<v Speaker 1>Are there any legal issues with that maneuver? It is.

0:09:47.920 --> 0:09:50.120
<v Speaker 1>It is a little bit of a gray area of

0:09:50.160 --> 0:09:53.760
<v Speaker 1>the law, but that is something that activists do frequently,

0:09:53.920 --> 0:09:57.040
<v Speaker 1>that they give a scoop to one media outlet, very

0:09:57.080 --> 0:10:00.280
<v Speaker 1>often actually your very own Scott Devote from bloom Book,

0:10:01.080 --> 0:10:04.959
<v Speaker 1>and only afterwards an hour later, thirty minutes later, or

0:10:05.040 --> 0:10:08.520
<v Speaker 1>sometimes even five minutes later, they issued their press release

0:10:08.880 --> 0:10:13.079
<v Speaker 1>or makes the as you see filing. The SEC has

0:10:13.120 --> 0:10:16.679
<v Speaker 1>not taken any any action against this kind of maneuver

0:10:16.920 --> 0:10:19.240
<v Speaker 1>in the past, and I doubt that the SEC is

0:10:19.280 --> 0:10:22.440
<v Speaker 1>focused on this, but it is interesting that activists like

0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:26.400
<v Speaker 1>to do that. M Now, the stock traded up significantly

0:10:26.440 --> 0:10:30.319
<v Speaker 1>following the news. What is the significance of this stock

0:10:30.360 --> 0:10:37.920
<v Speaker 1>price increase legally or otherwise, Well, it shows me that

0:10:39.520 --> 0:10:42.960
<v Speaker 1>the activists probably did not give a hatch up to

0:10:43.200 --> 0:10:47.560
<v Speaker 1>other arts and hatch funds investors, because if you have

0:10:47.720 --> 0:10:51.840
<v Speaker 1>such a large right in the stock price following following

0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:57.000
<v Speaker 1>the news, it means that no one else or few

0:10:57.640 --> 0:11:04.240
<v Speaker 1>outside the activists knew beforehand that this would would would

0:11:04.640 --> 0:11:09.160
<v Speaker 1>what happened. So from a legal perspective, it probably clears

0:11:09.160 --> 0:11:14.000
<v Speaker 1>the activists from any wrongdoing. Um. It is also interesting

0:11:14.080 --> 0:11:18.320
<v Speaker 1>though that a lot of a lot of outside advisors

0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:24.079
<v Speaker 1>wead more into the stock price increase when when an

0:11:24.080 --> 0:11:28.080
<v Speaker 1>activists go public, a lot of a lot of outside

0:11:28.080 --> 0:11:31.920
<v Speaker 1>observers fear that it's a stock price increases significantly that

0:11:32.080 --> 0:11:35.880
<v Speaker 1>this is a core di validation of the activist thesis.

0:11:36.200 --> 0:11:39.040
<v Speaker 1>Un a little bit skeptical of that argument. For me,

0:11:39.120 --> 0:11:41.120
<v Speaker 1>it just means that there are a lot of ups

0:11:41.160 --> 0:11:44.360
<v Speaker 1>and hetch funds preing into the stock and they oftentimes

0:11:44.440 --> 0:11:49.920
<v Speaker 1>just follow the name without any any larger investigation as

0:11:49.960 --> 0:11:52.520
<v Speaker 1>to whether or not the activist thesis, which is not

0:11:52.559 --> 0:11:56.880
<v Speaker 1>even publicly disclosed in our case, has any validity or not?

0:11:58.000 --> 0:12:00.200
<v Speaker 1>And what are the typical next legal steps for were

0:12:00.720 --> 0:12:07.600
<v Speaker 1>the activists after filing this schedule d well. Typically activists

0:12:07.640 --> 0:12:11.560
<v Speaker 1>start engaging with the public with the company privately, not

0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:14.719
<v Speaker 1>in public, after they file a schedule thirt in d

0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:17.640
<v Speaker 1>But at some point or another they have to make

0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:20.360
<v Speaker 1>a decision whether they put up or shot up. That

0:12:20.600 --> 0:12:24.640
<v Speaker 1>is um meaning whether or not they run a proxy

0:12:24.720 --> 0:12:29.640
<v Speaker 1>contest to replace all or a portion of the board

0:12:29.679 --> 0:12:34.080
<v Speaker 1>of the target company. And at most companies, there are

0:12:34.840 --> 0:12:39.880
<v Speaker 1>certain deadlines to observe when making a step of running

0:12:39.880 --> 0:12:43.400
<v Speaker 1>a proxy contest. It's called the nomination deadline. The nomination

0:12:43.440 --> 0:12:47.679
<v Speaker 1>deadline at most companies is somewhere between February and March,

0:12:48.200 --> 0:12:50.840
<v Speaker 1>So that would be the next legal step in this

0:12:50.920 --> 0:12:55.559
<v Speaker 1>kind of situation for an activist. H Ki Leakafet is

0:12:55.559 --> 0:12:59.080
<v Speaker 1>our guest. He's a partner at Siddeley Austin in New York.

0:12:59.120 --> 0:13:04.360
<v Speaker 1>He also court or Siddley's Shareholder Activism a practice. Are

0:13:04.360 --> 0:13:07.080
<v Speaker 1>there any illegal defenses a company can use against an

0:13:07.080 --> 0:13:12.080
<v Speaker 1>activist after the filing of a schedule thirteen day that's

0:13:12.080 --> 0:13:15.520
<v Speaker 1>a question I always get from clients, and many of

0:13:15.520 --> 0:13:19.480
<v Speaker 1>my clients would like to take the activists to court,

0:13:20.040 --> 0:13:23.360
<v Speaker 1>send them to jail, get them, beat them up. But

0:13:23.520 --> 0:13:26.480
<v Speaker 1>the unfortunate trous is that they are a few legal

0:13:26.559 --> 0:13:32.880
<v Speaker 1>defenses that have an immediate effect against an activist. One

0:13:33.000 --> 0:13:35.800
<v Speaker 1>of the defenses that a lot of companies explore is

0:13:35.840 --> 0:13:38.640
<v Speaker 1>whether or not to adopt a so called poison pill.

0:13:38.760 --> 0:13:41.760
<v Speaker 1>A poison pill, it's a legal instrument that allows a

0:13:41.840 --> 0:13:47.360
<v Speaker 1>company to limit the maximum amount of shares any investor

0:13:47.480 --> 0:13:50.360
<v Speaker 1>can buy. Typically that it's a ten or fifteen percent

0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:54.760
<v Speaker 1>threshold of the outstanding shares. So that's something a company

0:13:54.800 --> 0:13:57.920
<v Speaker 1>can do. However, the poison piler, just as many other pills,

0:13:58.000 --> 0:14:00.880
<v Speaker 1>has certain side effects, and the side effect of a

0:14:00.960 --> 0:14:04.160
<v Speaker 1>poison pail as while the board can do that without

0:14:04.200 --> 0:14:08.080
<v Speaker 1>share old or approval, a lot of shareholders view poison

0:14:08.120 --> 0:14:13.400
<v Speaker 1>pods relatively negatively and tend to vote against the incumbent

0:14:13.440 --> 0:14:18.600
<v Speaker 1>board unless the board can demonstrate a very good justification

0:14:18.720 --> 0:14:21.240
<v Speaker 1>for the adoption of the poison fill. So it is

0:14:21.360 --> 0:14:25.800
<v Speaker 1>a legal maneuver that is sometimes used. Sometimes it makes

0:14:25.840 --> 0:14:28.040
<v Speaker 1>sense to use it, but in a lot of cases,

0:14:28.920 --> 0:14:33.760
<v Speaker 1>the the the disadvantages at weigh outweigh the advantages of

0:14:33.840 --> 0:14:36.840
<v Speaker 1>the mm hmmm. A final question for me, so, how

0:14:36.880 --> 0:14:40.240
<v Speaker 1>do you size up this activist investor, Starboard value and

0:14:40.320 --> 0:14:44.080
<v Speaker 1>the actions they took as it relates to Go Daddy. Well,

0:14:44.120 --> 0:14:47.880
<v Speaker 1>I cannot speak to Go Daddy, but generally speaking, uh,

0:14:48.400 --> 0:14:52.040
<v Speaker 1>Starboard is one of the most well known activist investors,

0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:55.200
<v Speaker 1>either the number one of the number two activist investors

0:14:55.240 --> 0:14:58.680
<v Speaker 1>in the world. They have a lot of credibility in

0:14:58.720 --> 0:15:02.640
<v Speaker 1>the market. They a a lot of capital at the disposal.

0:15:02.680 --> 0:15:06.600
<v Speaker 1>They have very sophisticated advisers, so when they decide to

0:15:06.640 --> 0:15:11.120
<v Speaker 1>go public against the company, it's typically it's typically a

0:15:11.120 --> 0:15:15.880
<v Speaker 1>sign of confidence on their end that they got it right.

0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:20.560
<v Speaker 1>K Kaylee Kaffett, he is a partner, said Lee Austin

0:15:20.760 --> 0:15:23.160
<v Speaker 1>there in New York City. Appreciate you taking time and

0:15:23.240 --> 0:15:26.800
<v Speaker 1>joining us on Bloomberg Law. Thank you for having me.

0:15:27.440 --> 0:15:29.720
<v Speaker 1>That's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

0:15:29.760 --> 0:15:32.360
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:15:32.400 --> 0:15:37.680
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcast, Spotify,

0:15:37.760 --> 0:15:43.440
<v Speaker 1>and on www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

0:15:43.640 --> 0:15:46.440
<v Speaker 1>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:15:46.520 --> 0:15:49.040
<v Speaker 1>night at ten pm Wall Street Time. The show is

0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:52.360
<v Speaker 1>produced by Eric Mallow for Bloomberg Radio. I'm Joe Shortsley.

0:15:52.480 --> 0:15:54.520
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for listening and remember the tune into the

0:15:54.520 --> 0:15:57.520
<v Speaker 1>next edition of Bloomberg Law right here on Bloomberg Radio

0:16:00.160 --> 0:16:00.200
<v Speaker 1>b