WEBVTT - Behind the Guilty Pleas in College Admissions Scandal

0:00:00.480 --> 0:00:04.560
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to bloom Bird Law with June Grosso. After

0:00:04.640 --> 0:00:07.720
<v Speaker 1>a year long legal battle and insistence on their innocence,

0:00:08.039 --> 0:00:11.200
<v Speaker 1>Full House star Lourie Lacklan and her husband, fashion designer

0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:15.000
<v Speaker 1>Massima Giannui gave up and pleaded guilty to paying half

0:00:15.000 --> 0:00:17.840
<v Speaker 1>a million dollars in bribes to get their two daughters

0:00:17.840 --> 0:00:21.280
<v Speaker 1>into the University of Southern California as Fate Crew stars,

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:24.599
<v Speaker 1>even as prosecutors announced that a twenty fifth parent would

0:00:24.600 --> 0:00:28.360
<v Speaker 1>admit guilt in the sprawling case. Under their proposed deals,

0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:30.880
<v Speaker 1>Laughlin will spend two months in prison and pay a

0:00:30.920 --> 0:00:34.560
<v Speaker 1>one hundred fifty thousand dollar fine, and Giannuly will spend

0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:37.200
<v Speaker 1>five months in prison and pay a two hundred fifty

0:00:37.200 --> 0:00:41.200
<v Speaker 1>thousand dollar fine. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz,

0:00:41.240 --> 0:00:44.960
<v Speaker 1>a partner mcarter and English. They put on such a

0:00:45.040 --> 0:00:50.480
<v Speaker 1>fierce defense, challenging the prosecution again and again. Why throw

0:00:50.560 --> 0:00:53.680
<v Speaker 1>in the towel at this point? Lori Laughlin and her

0:00:53.760 --> 0:00:58.480
<v Speaker 1>husband Massima genuinely have bought this tooth and nail from

0:00:58.520 --> 0:01:01.280
<v Speaker 1>the moment that they were charged, and now after almost

0:01:01.320 --> 0:01:04.480
<v Speaker 1>a year, they decided to change their minds and enter

0:01:04.520 --> 0:01:08.160
<v Speaker 1>a guilty plate. They fought the government by challenging whether

0:01:08.160 --> 0:01:10.920
<v Speaker 1>the prosecution should have been brought in Massachusetts rather than

0:01:10.959 --> 0:01:15.080
<v Speaker 1>in California, where they're located. They also challenged the government

0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:18.400
<v Speaker 1>that had named dozens of other parents in the same

0:01:18.480 --> 0:01:21.800
<v Speaker 1>charging document along with them. The only thing that tied

0:01:21.880 --> 0:01:24.120
<v Speaker 1>all these parents together was the fact that they all

0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:27.720
<v Speaker 1>had been involved with Mr. Singer, who was the mastermind,

0:01:27.720 --> 0:01:30.880
<v Speaker 1>who ultimately cooperated with the government. But the last did

0:01:31.000 --> 0:01:34.280
<v Speaker 1>that these defendants raised was they challenge the government over

0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:37.399
<v Speaker 1>what they called out regious government misconduct, which was some

0:01:37.600 --> 0:01:41.160
<v Speaker 1>discovery that the government was late in turning over. When

0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:43.840
<v Speaker 1>that was denied, they changed their minds and decided to

0:01:43.840 --> 0:01:47.319
<v Speaker 1>plead guilty. They were facing trial in October, and the

0:01:47.400 --> 0:01:52.560
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors had recorded conversations and emails. Did they see that

0:01:52.600 --> 0:01:56.080
<v Speaker 1>there was too much evidence to explain away? The evidence

0:01:56.160 --> 0:02:00.200
<v Speaker 1>against Lochlan E. G anuinely did appear to be overwhelming.

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:03.000
<v Speaker 1>The problems the defendants faced in this case is that

0:02:03.040 --> 0:02:05.920
<v Speaker 1>they had some very damaging emails that they had sent

0:02:06.000 --> 0:02:09.400
<v Speaker 1>to various people. For example, Gia Newley had forwarded the

0:02:09.440 --> 0:02:14.160
<v Speaker 1>two hundred thousand dollar invoice from Mr Singer, the scammed

0:02:14.240 --> 0:02:18.080
<v Speaker 1>mastermind to his financial advisor and included a note saying,

0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:21.640
<v Speaker 1>good news, my daughter is in SC. Bad is I

0:02:21.680 --> 0:02:24.280
<v Speaker 1>had to work the system. There also was an email

0:02:24.320 --> 0:02:27.160
<v Speaker 1>from Lori Loughlin to her daughter saying she shouldn't discuss

0:02:27.200 --> 0:02:30.959
<v Speaker 1>the way she got into USC with her college guidance counselor.

0:02:31.200 --> 0:02:34.200
<v Speaker 1>And so it appeared that there was some damaging evidence

0:02:34.200 --> 0:02:37.520
<v Speaker 1>which showed consciousness of guilt on the airport, and ultimately

0:02:37.720 --> 0:02:40.280
<v Speaker 1>there was even a photograph of one of their daughters

0:02:40.680 --> 0:02:43.400
<v Speaker 1>looking like she was on a rowing machine since she

0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:45.679
<v Speaker 1>was being admitted to the school as a rower, when

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:48.800
<v Speaker 1>in fact she was not rowing at all. Ultimately, this

0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:52.000
<v Speaker 1>is going to be very damaging evidence and likely difficult

0:02:52.000 --> 0:02:55.440
<v Speaker 1>to overcome a trial. The strategy here with the defense

0:02:55.480 --> 0:02:57.040
<v Speaker 1>was to try to see whether there was some way

0:02:57.080 --> 0:03:00.480
<v Speaker 1>to knock this case out prior to trial. They brought

0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:03.360
<v Speaker 1>these charges against the government saying that there was government

0:03:03.400 --> 0:03:05.840
<v Speaker 1>mis conduct. They tried to knock the case out in

0:03:05.880 --> 0:03:08.639
<v Speaker 1>other ways by arguing that they shouldn't have been charged

0:03:08.680 --> 0:03:11.320
<v Speaker 1>along with dozens of other parents. But ultimately, when all

0:03:11.360 --> 0:03:14.640
<v Speaker 1>those legal strategies did not pan out, I think that's

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:17.720
<v Speaker 1>why they changed their mind and decided to enter the plague, Bob,

0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 1>we often talked about Felicity Hoffman being a parent that

0:03:21.240 --> 0:03:25.520
<v Speaker 1>right away said I'm guilty, I'm sorry, and took her medicine.

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:28.960
<v Speaker 1>Are they still getting a sweetheart deal, a good deal

0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:32.480
<v Speaker 1>even though they fought the system for a year twoth

0:03:32.480 --> 0:03:35.120
<v Speaker 1>and nail as you say, well, there have been thirty

0:03:35.160 --> 0:03:39.520
<v Speaker 1>seven parents charged in this overarching scheme, and to date,

0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:42.920
<v Speaker 1>twenty four of them have pleaded guilty. As you mentioned,

0:03:42.920 --> 0:03:46.480
<v Speaker 1>Felicity Huffman received two weeks in jail, was one of

0:03:46.480 --> 0:03:49.720
<v Speaker 1>the first to step up and immediately acknowledge her guilt.

0:03:50.160 --> 0:03:53.240
<v Speaker 1>The longest sentence so far that's been handed down was

0:03:53.440 --> 0:03:57.920
<v Speaker 1>nine months for former pimcos CEO Douglas Hides. So the

0:03:58.080 --> 0:04:00.520
<v Speaker 1>range in terms of sentencing has really been from two

0:04:00.520 --> 0:04:04.560
<v Speaker 1>weeks to nine months. This sentence here, which is two

0:04:04.680 --> 0:04:08.200
<v Speaker 1>months for Lorie Laughlin and five months for a husband,

0:04:08.280 --> 0:04:10.560
<v Speaker 1>kind of falls in the middle. But they did fight

0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:13.200
<v Speaker 1>this charge for over a year. They did battle the

0:04:13.240 --> 0:04:16.320
<v Speaker 1>government by filing multiple motions to try to get these

0:04:16.400 --> 0:04:20.159
<v Speaker 1>charges dismissed or altered, and ultimately seen that they got

0:04:20.279 --> 0:04:23.000
<v Speaker 1>the same type of deal that most of these parents

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:25.359
<v Speaker 1>have been offered so far in this case. Doesn't that

0:04:25.440 --> 0:04:28.800
<v Speaker 1>send the wrong message from prosecutors. Doesn't that send a

0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:32.640
<v Speaker 1>message that you can keep fighting us every which way

0:04:32.920 --> 0:04:34.960
<v Speaker 1>over and over again, but we'll still give you a

0:04:35.000 --> 0:04:38.360
<v Speaker 1>good deal, rather than the message that you might expect,

0:04:38.440 --> 0:04:41.560
<v Speaker 1>which is lead early and you'll get a good deal.

0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:44.479
<v Speaker 1>Often the rule is that if you're going to get

0:04:44.520 --> 0:04:47.560
<v Speaker 1>the best deal in a criminal case, that comes early on.

0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:50.280
<v Speaker 1>And if you put the government to its test, if

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:53.599
<v Speaker 1>you make them respond to motions, and if you fight

0:04:53.640 --> 0:04:56.240
<v Speaker 1>them right up until the day of trial, usually the

0:04:56.320 --> 0:04:59.279
<v Speaker 1>deal is not so attractive. And prosecutors do that because

0:04:59.279 --> 0:05:01.599
<v Speaker 1>they try to get people to enter into these three

0:05:01.640 --> 0:05:04.480
<v Speaker 1>deals early on. If everybody makes them do all the

0:05:04.520 --> 0:05:07.080
<v Speaker 1>work to try to prepare for trial, it becomes an

0:05:07.080 --> 0:05:09.840
<v Speaker 1>overwhelming task for them. And they try to encourage people

0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:11.920
<v Speaker 1>to come in early, and they try to encourage people

0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:14.719
<v Speaker 1>to cooperate when cooperation is something that's on the table

0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:18.000
<v Speaker 1>for them. Here though, they do have many, many parents

0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:20.480
<v Speaker 1>who are charged in this case, and ultimately I think

0:05:20.480 --> 0:05:24.800
<v Speaker 1>they're looking forward please that send people to jail. That

0:05:24.920 --> 0:05:28.120
<v Speaker 1>send the signal that even though most of these parents

0:05:28.200 --> 0:05:30.520
<v Speaker 1>were very wealthy, most of these parents paid an awful

0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:32.400
<v Speaker 1>lot of money to try to get their children to school.

0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:34.440
<v Speaker 1>But they're not above the law that they have to

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:37.680
<v Speaker 1>pay fines in connection with these guilty please, and they

0:05:37.760 --> 0:05:40.359
<v Speaker 1>ultimately have to serve time and jail. The amount of

0:05:40.400 --> 0:05:43.160
<v Speaker 1>time and jail, you could argue is somewhat less than

0:05:43.279 --> 0:05:47.120
<v Speaker 1>maybe perhaps another defendant in a similar case might have received.

0:05:47.440 --> 0:05:49.440
<v Speaker 1>But here the government I think is looking at the

0:05:49.480 --> 0:05:53.040
<v Speaker 1>overall charges, looking at the number of cases they have here,

0:05:53.240 --> 0:05:55.719
<v Speaker 1>and trying to come up with some fair resolution that

0:05:55.839 --> 0:05:58.520
<v Speaker 1>includes jail time for each of these defendants. And so

0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:01.960
<v Speaker 1>far that's what they've achieved. Why is j newly getting

0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:05.760
<v Speaker 1>a much different sentence when they were obviously in this together.

0:06:06.160 --> 0:06:08.800
<v Speaker 1>In entering their guilty, please, Lori Lock would admitted to

0:06:08.800 --> 0:06:12.120
<v Speaker 1>a single kind of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud,

0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:16.240
<v Speaker 1>while her husband, Mr Giannuly agreed to plead guilty not

0:06:16.360 --> 0:06:18.680
<v Speaker 1>only to wire and mail fraud but also a charge

0:06:18.680 --> 0:06:21.960
<v Speaker 1>of conspiracy to commit on its services fraud. That accounts

0:06:22.000 --> 0:06:25.719
<v Speaker 1>for her sentence of two months and his agreed sentence

0:06:26.000 --> 0:06:29.240
<v Speaker 1>of five months. Ultimately, the government here believed that Mr

0:06:29.320 --> 0:06:32.360
<v Speaker 1>Giannuly was more involved in these payments than his wife,

0:06:32.520 --> 0:06:34.719
<v Speaker 1>and that's why we see this disparity in terms of

0:06:34.720 --> 0:06:38.440
<v Speaker 1>the recommended sentences. But remember also that these are agreed

0:06:38.520 --> 0:06:41.760
<v Speaker 1>upon sentences only between the defendants and the government. It's

0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:44.240
<v Speaker 1>ultimately up to the judge as to what sentence will

0:06:44.279 --> 0:06:46.599
<v Speaker 1>be handed down. In this case, the judge is reading

0:06:46.600 --> 0:06:49.400
<v Speaker 1>the pre sentence reports. Do you think you will stick

0:06:49.440 --> 0:06:51.120
<v Speaker 1>to the plea deal in this case? Is there any

0:06:51.120 --> 0:06:54.279
<v Speaker 1>way of telling with this judge? Well, with all cases,

0:06:54.480 --> 0:06:57.039
<v Speaker 1>when a plea is entered, a judge makes clear that

0:06:57.080 --> 0:07:00.559
<v Speaker 1>whatever deal that defendants have with the government, it's something

0:07:00.600 --> 0:07:02.880
<v Speaker 1>that does not find the court of that the judge

0:07:02.920 --> 0:07:05.599
<v Speaker 1>will not make up its mind until it reads the

0:07:05.640 --> 0:07:09.000
<v Speaker 1>pre sentence report. But the judge is also mindful of

0:07:09.040 --> 0:07:11.520
<v Speaker 1>the fact that in order to get these plea deals,

0:07:11.640 --> 0:07:14.840
<v Speaker 1>it's important that defendants be able to rely upon the

0:07:14.920 --> 0:07:18.920
<v Speaker 1>government's recommendation with some degree of certainty. So here I

0:07:18.960 --> 0:07:21.800
<v Speaker 1>think we can expect that the judge to ultimately follow

0:07:21.840 --> 0:07:25.560
<v Speaker 1>the government's recommendation to sentence these defendants to the terms

0:07:25.560 --> 0:07:27.960
<v Speaker 1>that were agreed upon by the government. What's one of

0:07:27.960 --> 0:07:30.720
<v Speaker 1>the things that is unusual here is that typically the

0:07:30.800 --> 0:07:33.920
<v Speaker 1>government will agree to a range of sentencing. In other words,

0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:37.960
<v Speaker 1>the federal sentencing guidelines has ranges of months that apply

0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:41.840
<v Speaker 1>to a particular sentence based upon various factors. In this case,

0:07:41.880 --> 0:07:44.360
<v Speaker 1>in order to entice these defendants to take this plea,

0:07:44.760 --> 0:07:48.160
<v Speaker 1>the government is taking this somewhat unusual step of recommending

0:07:48.240 --> 0:07:51.720
<v Speaker 1>a particular sentence of two months and five months as

0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:54.560
<v Speaker 1>opposed to a range of sentencing. The government is also

0:07:54.680 --> 0:07:59.240
<v Speaker 1>leaving open the defendant's ability to advance claims of ineffective

0:07:59.240 --> 0:08:05.440
<v Speaker 1>assistance of council and prosecutorial misconduct. Is that unusual, Yes,

0:08:05.520 --> 0:08:09.040
<v Speaker 1>that is unusual. Usually the way plea deals read is

0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:11.320
<v Speaker 1>that you enter your plea and you give up your

0:08:11.400 --> 0:08:14.920
<v Speaker 1>right to challenge the sentence unless it's outside the agreed

0:08:15.000 --> 0:08:17.400
<v Speaker 1>upon range that you have agreed to the government with.

0:08:17.920 --> 0:08:20.320
<v Speaker 1>But in this case they've thrown that in. I think

0:08:20.320 --> 0:08:22.800
<v Speaker 1>it really is more window dressing than it is any

0:08:22.920 --> 0:08:26.680
<v Speaker 1>real right for the defendants. The likelihood that there will

0:08:26.720 --> 0:08:31.280
<v Speaker 1>be an ultimate finding of any kind of prosecutorial misconduct

0:08:31.480 --> 0:08:33.960
<v Speaker 1>is remote, and it's even more remote that there could

0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:37.560
<v Speaker 1>be some finding of ineffective assistance of counsel given the

0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:40.520
<v Speaker 1>lawyers who were involved in the case. So it really

0:08:40.600 --> 0:08:44.200
<v Speaker 1>is something that the defendants are holding out there in

0:08:44.280 --> 0:08:46.840
<v Speaker 1>case something might come up later in the case that

0:08:46.920 --> 0:08:50.160
<v Speaker 1>shows that prosecutors acted in some way that was inappropriate,

0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:53.160
<v Speaker 1>but it's unlikely, ultimately tat to have any real effect

0:08:53.400 --> 0:08:55.160
<v Speaker 1>on the outcome of this case or the amount of

0:08:55.200 --> 0:08:58.400
<v Speaker 1>time that these two defendant servant jail. Is it possible

0:08:58.800 --> 0:09:02.720
<v Speaker 1>that they will serve less time because of COVID nineteen,

0:09:03.679 --> 0:09:06.160
<v Speaker 1>while it's possible that they could serve less time due

0:09:06.200 --> 0:09:08.960
<v Speaker 1>to COVID nineteen, And it's possible that the judge could

0:09:08.960 --> 0:09:11.400
<v Speaker 1>sentence them to something less than what they've agreed to

0:09:11.520 --> 0:09:14.439
<v Speaker 1>with the government. In this case, given the high degree

0:09:14.440 --> 0:09:17.160
<v Speaker 1>of publicity and the fact that this had been fought

0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:19.720
<v Speaker 1>out between the government and the defense for over a year,

0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:23.440
<v Speaker 1>these are sentences that are, in the eyes of some people,

0:09:23.480 --> 0:09:26.520
<v Speaker 1>on the low end of where these cases should have

0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:29.400
<v Speaker 1>ended up. I think it's more likely than the judge

0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:32.160
<v Speaker 1>will sentence them to exactly the amount of time that

0:09:32.240 --> 0:09:34.840
<v Speaker 1>they've agreed to with the government and that they will

0:09:34.880 --> 0:09:37.880
<v Speaker 1>serve the full amount of that time. The COVID nineteen

0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:40.600
<v Speaker 1>issue is obviously something that the parties are aware of

0:09:40.679 --> 0:09:43.400
<v Speaker 1>going into this deal. So for the defense to then

0:09:43.520 --> 0:09:46.720
<v Speaker 1>argue that because of COVID nineteen they should serve less time.

0:09:47.160 --> 0:09:49.800
<v Speaker 1>Seems to be somewhat disingenuous, and I think it's unlikely

0:09:49.840 --> 0:09:52.280
<v Speaker 1>just to weigh the court. As we get closer and

0:09:52.320 --> 0:09:56.680
<v Speaker 1>closer to two trials that are scheduled for October and January,

0:09:56.840 --> 0:10:00.400
<v Speaker 1>is it likely that we'll see more plea deals. Well,

0:10:00.400 --> 0:10:02.960
<v Speaker 1>that's certainly what the government is hoping for us here.

0:10:03.400 --> 0:10:06.080
<v Speaker 1>Usually you see a bit of a domino effect as

0:10:06.120 --> 0:10:09.080
<v Speaker 1>you see defendants begin to plead guilty. But each of

0:10:09.080 --> 0:10:13.719
<v Speaker 1>these cases is somewhat different. Factually, the charges stem from

0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:16.880
<v Speaker 1>paying off the mastermind of this case in order to

0:10:16.960 --> 0:10:20.600
<v Speaker 1>get their children into school, some of them posing as athletes,

0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:24.400
<v Speaker 1>some of them just making large contributions to this foundation

0:10:24.800 --> 0:10:28.480
<v Speaker 1>that were really disguised brides to Mr Singer. So each

0:10:28.520 --> 0:10:31.120
<v Speaker 1>case is factually different. But on the other hand, there's

0:10:31.120 --> 0:10:34.160
<v Speaker 1>certainly gonna be some defendants who are sitting out there

0:10:34.200 --> 0:10:36.800
<v Speaker 1>looking at what's going on and saying, if Lori Laughlin

0:10:36.880 --> 0:10:39.520
<v Speaker 1>and her husband are deciding to plead guilty, given all

0:10:39.520 --> 0:10:41.960
<v Speaker 1>the money that they have, and given the high price

0:10:42.120 --> 0:10:45.040
<v Speaker 1>legal talent that was representing them, maybe they should consider

0:10:45.080 --> 0:10:48.920
<v Speaker 1>doing the same, you know, Bob. Also, what might make

0:10:49.040 --> 0:10:52.880
<v Speaker 1>some defendants want to plead is that they're going to

0:10:52.920 --> 0:10:57.240
<v Speaker 1>be tried in groups, and that is a disadvantage for

0:10:57.320 --> 0:11:01.120
<v Speaker 1>the defendants. Yeah, that is one of the key motions

0:11:01.160 --> 0:11:03.440
<v Speaker 1>that was made early on in this case by all

0:11:03.480 --> 0:11:06.800
<v Speaker 1>the defendants, the fact that they were indicted in groups

0:11:06.840 --> 0:11:09.760
<v Speaker 1>and going to be tried with dozens of other parents

0:11:09.800 --> 0:11:13.960
<v Speaker 1>that they had absolutely no contact with whatsoever. The government

0:11:14.080 --> 0:11:19.200
<v Speaker 1>theory behind that case was because the common mastermind, William Singer,

0:11:19.320 --> 0:11:21.760
<v Speaker 1>was the one who brought them all together, that they

0:11:21.760 --> 0:11:25.640
<v Speaker 1>could use him as a cooperating witness in one trial

0:11:25.800 --> 0:11:29.520
<v Speaker 1>against all of the parents. The prosecution here was trying

0:11:29.559 --> 0:11:33.160
<v Speaker 1>to avoid having Mr Singer testify over and over again

0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:36.880
<v Speaker 1>in repeated trial. During each trial, he would likely give

0:11:36.920 --> 0:11:39.720
<v Speaker 1>testimony that was slightly different from the trial before, and

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:42.400
<v Speaker 1>that would be of defense lawyers ammunition to try to

0:11:42.559 --> 0:11:46.080
<v Speaker 1>attack his credibility. So they were indicted in groups, and

0:11:46.120 --> 0:11:48.560
<v Speaker 1>there's two large groups who are still set to go

0:11:48.600 --> 0:11:51.559
<v Speaker 1>to trial in this case. That does place the defendants

0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:54.400
<v Speaker 1>in a bit of a disadvantage because there's something to

0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:58.120
<v Speaker 1>argue that because one parent might be guilty, then they

0:11:58.120 --> 0:12:01.120
<v Speaker 1>all might be guilty. That's called prejudice will spill over something.

0:12:01.160 --> 0:12:04.640
<v Speaker 1>Defense lawyers try to argue against all the time. Usually,

0:12:04.679 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 1>if there's a reason for the judge to uphold the

0:12:07.520 --> 0:12:10.040
<v Speaker 1>way the government has charged the case, he'll go along

0:12:10.160 --> 0:12:13.520
<v Speaker 1>with prosecutors and allow these parents to be tried in groups.

0:12:13.920 --> 0:12:15.959
<v Speaker 1>If that continues to be the case, if the judge

0:12:16.000 --> 0:12:19.240
<v Speaker 1>does not agree to separate these trials out into individual cases,

0:12:19.440 --> 0:12:21.559
<v Speaker 1>that makes it more likely that the parents will ultimately

0:12:21.559 --> 0:12:25.679
<v Speaker 1>plead guilty. Why do you think the prosecutors never indicted

0:12:26.200 --> 0:12:28.360
<v Speaker 1>any of the students here? I mean, in some of

0:12:28.400 --> 0:12:31.240
<v Speaker 1>these cases, the students had to have known that they

0:12:31.240 --> 0:12:36.080
<v Speaker 1>don't row, and they're applying to school as rowing stars.

0:12:36.600 --> 0:12:39.679
<v Speaker 1>Why aren't the kids being indicted as well? Well, that's

0:12:39.679 --> 0:12:41.800
<v Speaker 1>a good question. A lot of people who looked at

0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:44.080
<v Speaker 1>this case have asked the question why none of the

0:12:44.080 --> 0:12:46.720
<v Speaker 1>students were charged, or frankly, why none of the schools

0:12:46.720 --> 0:12:49.280
<v Speaker 1>were charged. I think what went on here on the

0:12:49.320 --> 0:12:52.440
<v Speaker 1>side of the prosecutors was that they made a discretionary

0:12:52.520 --> 0:12:54.920
<v Speaker 1>call that, even though there might have been evidence to

0:12:55.040 --> 0:12:58.679
<v Speaker 1>charge the students, that ultimately these were kids who were

0:12:58.720 --> 0:13:01.160
<v Speaker 1>being guided by their and their parents were the ones

0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:03.320
<v Speaker 1>who were paying the money. The parents were the ones

0:13:03.400 --> 0:13:06.240
<v Speaker 1>who were having the conversations with Miter Singer and with

0:13:06.320 --> 0:13:09.160
<v Speaker 1>others and who were guiding their children, and they just

0:13:09.280 --> 0:13:11.880
<v Speaker 1>made the discretionary call that they were just going to

0:13:12.000 --> 0:13:15.040
<v Speaker 1>charge their parents and not charge the students. They also

0:13:15.080 --> 0:13:16.920
<v Speaker 1>have to know that if they charge the students, it

0:13:17.040 --> 0:13:19.880
<v Speaker 1>was going to be increasingly difficult to get people to

0:13:19.920 --> 0:13:23.040
<v Speaker 1>plead guilty. In these cases, the parents would likely fall

0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:24.720
<v Speaker 1>on the sword in order to protect their kids. Then

0:13:24.760 --> 0:13:27.800
<v Speaker 1>that's exactly what we're seeing happening here. Thanks Bob. That's

0:13:27.920 --> 0:13:31.760
<v Speaker 1>Robert Mints, a partner of Carter in English Virus, close

0:13:31.840 --> 0:13:34.200
<v Speaker 1>to a turning point in its legal battle over the

0:13:34.240 --> 0:13:37.839
<v Speaker 1>weed killer round up. According to Bloomberg sources, Buyer has

0:13:37.840 --> 0:13:41.319
<v Speaker 1>reached verbal agreements to resolve a substantial portion of an

0:13:41.440 --> 0:13:46.120
<v Speaker 1>estimated one thousand cancer lawsuits over use of its roundup.

0:13:46.520 --> 0:13:50.199
<v Speaker 1>The company denies that roundup or glipa state causes cancer,

0:13:50.520 --> 0:13:54.719
<v Speaker 1>a position backed by the Environmental Protection Agency, but altogether,

0:13:55.040 --> 0:13:57.840
<v Speaker 1>juries from three trials ordered the company to pay a

0:13:57.880 --> 0:14:01.920
<v Speaker 1>combined two point four billion dollars and damages. Judges later

0:14:02.000 --> 0:14:06.040
<v Speaker 1>slashed those awards to one million. The deals which have

0:14:06.160 --> 0:14:09.000
<v Speaker 1>yet to be signed, to cover and estimated fifty thousand

0:14:09.080 --> 0:14:12.080
<v Speaker 1>to eighty five thousand suits. They're part of a ten

0:14:12.120 --> 0:14:15.800
<v Speaker 1>billion dollar plan to end the costly legal battle. Joining

0:14:15.840 --> 0:14:18.120
<v Speaker 1>me is Eric Gordon, a professor at the Raw School

0:14:18.160 --> 0:14:21.560
<v Speaker 1>of Business at the University of Michigan. Eric, why settle

0:14:21.680 --> 0:14:25.200
<v Speaker 1>now after battling this for two years? Well, buyer would

0:14:25.240 --> 0:14:27.240
<v Speaker 1>like to settle and get it behind it because it's

0:14:27.240 --> 0:14:30.320
<v Speaker 1>been a big weight on the stock price of buyer.

0:14:31.040 --> 0:14:34.160
<v Speaker 1>Buyer stock price has gone down something like one third

0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:38.800
<v Speaker 1>since they bought Monsanto, So the CEO, who was the

0:14:38.840 --> 0:14:42.320
<v Speaker 1>person who actually did them on Santo o'deal probably wishes

0:14:42.360 --> 0:14:45.120
<v Speaker 1>he didn't would like to just put it behind him,

0:14:45.360 --> 0:14:49.120
<v Speaker 1>move on, get the uncertainty off the back of the

0:14:49.160 --> 0:14:54.520
<v Speaker 1>stock price. How much certainty is there when this covers

0:14:54.680 --> 0:14:59.000
<v Speaker 1>reportedly an estimated fifty thousand to eighty five thousand cases

0:14:59.040 --> 0:15:01.520
<v Speaker 1>out of a total of hundred and twenty five thousand,

0:15:01.920 --> 0:15:04.760
<v Speaker 1>So it seems like there's still a lot of uncertainty there. Yeah,

0:15:04.880 --> 0:15:06.760
<v Speaker 1>I think the settle that they're going to have to

0:15:06.840 --> 0:15:09.320
<v Speaker 1>do something about most of the rest of the cases.

0:15:10.040 --> 0:15:14.240
<v Speaker 1>Although if they knock out the big cases, meaning the

0:15:14.280 --> 0:15:17.720
<v Speaker 1>cases that are being handled by the big gun plaintiffs

0:15:17.800 --> 0:15:21.800
<v Speaker 1>lawyers um and all, they have left is the cases

0:15:21.840 --> 0:15:26.360
<v Speaker 1>that are being run by the lesser known, lesser sort

0:15:26.520 --> 0:15:30.760
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs lawyers. It'll be easier to settle those those remaining

0:15:30.840 --> 0:15:34.600
<v Speaker 1>cases because those are countries just don't have the resources,

0:15:34.680 --> 0:15:37.680
<v Speaker 1>and I think they will jump on trying to get

0:15:37.680 --> 0:15:40.920
<v Speaker 1>their cases settled too. So there are a handful of

0:15:41.000 --> 0:15:45.320
<v Speaker 1>lawyers that are holding out. Do lawyers who hold out

0:15:45.480 --> 0:15:49.400
<v Speaker 1>fair better or worse? You know, the lawyers who hold

0:15:49.440 --> 0:15:51.560
<v Speaker 1>out not going to do any better than the rest

0:15:51.560 --> 0:15:55.440
<v Speaker 1>of the lawyers because any settlement is going to include

0:15:55.480 --> 0:15:59.320
<v Speaker 1>all of them. Belayers made it clear that it's motivations

0:15:59.360 --> 0:16:02.360
<v Speaker 1>for settling is to get this behind them. They're the

0:16:02.400 --> 0:16:05.120
<v Speaker 1>ones who hold out. Might at most get a better

0:16:05.160 --> 0:16:08.400
<v Speaker 1>deal for everybody, um, but what they might get is

0:16:08.480 --> 0:16:13.240
<v Speaker 1>just a delay. And given the uncertainty about COVID, the

0:16:13.320 --> 0:16:16.840
<v Speaker 1>delay might mean a worse deal for all of the plaintiffs.

0:16:17.120 --> 0:16:19.600
<v Speaker 1>So let's talk a little bit about COVID before we

0:16:19.640 --> 0:16:22.880
<v Speaker 1>go on. Buyer backed out of some of the deals

0:16:23.080 --> 0:16:26.560
<v Speaker 1>due to COVID nineteen. How did that play in. Well,

0:16:27.040 --> 0:16:30.400
<v Speaker 1>that's put a little bit of fear into some of

0:16:30.440 --> 0:16:34.160
<v Speaker 1>the plaintiffs, bar not all of them, but the COVID

0:16:34.480 --> 0:16:38.600
<v Speaker 1>UH COVID has changed everything. Now the prospect is paying

0:16:38.640 --> 0:16:43.480
<v Speaker 1>out the reported eight billion dollars of cash is less

0:16:43.560 --> 0:16:47.479
<v Speaker 1>and less attractive to buyer. I mean, there's no companies

0:16:47.560 --> 0:16:51.800
<v Speaker 1>have been scrambling within CBM or Boeing companies and scrambling

0:16:51.840 --> 0:16:55.720
<v Speaker 1>to get their hands on cash. So the value of

0:16:55.840 --> 0:16:59.200
<v Speaker 1>getting the cases behind them versus having to shovel out

0:16:59.320 --> 0:17:03.040
<v Speaker 1>eight billions dollars starting to look less attractive to buyer.

0:17:03.200 --> 0:17:07.600
<v Speaker 1>So there's some pressure on both sides to get this settle. Reportedly,

0:17:08.440 --> 0:17:13.080
<v Speaker 1>Buyer used the threat of bankruptcy in settlement talks. Is

0:17:13.119 --> 0:17:16.600
<v Speaker 1>that something that companies often do. Yes, companies often do

0:17:16.640 --> 0:17:19.680
<v Speaker 1>it in the in these mass sport things. Um, we

0:17:19.760 --> 0:17:22.360
<v Speaker 1>saw it in a story you and I have talked

0:17:22.400 --> 0:17:29.600
<v Speaker 1>about a bunch the New Farmer case involving the opioid crisis. Um.

0:17:29.640 --> 0:17:34.480
<v Speaker 1>If if you go into bankruptcy, uh, then all of

0:17:34.520 --> 0:17:38.400
<v Speaker 1>these claims are unsecured claims, which in a human's language

0:17:38.440 --> 0:17:41.040
<v Speaker 1>means they get paid at the at the back of

0:17:41.040 --> 0:17:43.879
<v Speaker 1>the line with all of the other trade vendors and

0:17:44.040 --> 0:17:46.960
<v Speaker 1>everybody else, and there might not be much for them.

0:17:47.520 --> 0:17:52.120
<v Speaker 1>So it's a pretty it's a pretty scary threat. Although

0:17:52.240 --> 0:17:57.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure anybody really thinks Buyer would put Monsanto

0:17:57.119 --> 0:18:00.800
<v Speaker 1>into bankruptcy, But if they did, it changes everything. The

0:18:00.960 --> 0:18:04.160
<v Speaker 1>range of settlements is so wide, from a few million

0:18:04.280 --> 0:18:07.359
<v Speaker 1>to a few thousand. How do the settlements get worked

0:18:07.359 --> 0:18:09.840
<v Speaker 1>out moments? Is it whose lawyer is better, or is

0:18:09.880 --> 0:18:14.560
<v Speaker 1>it whose claim is better? It's a little of each. Unfortunately,

0:18:14.680 --> 0:18:18.080
<v Speaker 1>part of it doesn't depend on how feared your lawyer is.

0:18:18.560 --> 0:18:23.760
<v Speaker 1>So some members of the plaintiff's bar are are intensely feared. Uh,

0:18:23.800 --> 0:18:26.679
<v Speaker 1>they probably get a little bit more for their clients.

0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:30.480
<v Speaker 1>But they also will be looking at the individual cases.

0:18:30.560 --> 0:18:35.040
<v Speaker 1>And we're looking at two things, the severity of the

0:18:35.119 --> 0:18:39.639
<v Speaker 1>injury suffered by the plaintiffs, and to how strong is

0:18:39.680 --> 0:18:44.720
<v Speaker 1>the evidence that the plaintiffs injury was substantially caused by

0:18:44.840 --> 0:18:49.040
<v Speaker 1>round up. So in some cases you have a groundskeeper

0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:53.879
<v Speaker 1>who hangs in using roundup for thirty years, Well, that

0:18:54.040 --> 0:18:58.040
<v Speaker 1>case seems a little stronger, assuming you buy the idea

0:18:58.119 --> 0:19:01.119
<v Speaker 1>that round up is timeful. Case of somebody using it

0:19:01.200 --> 0:19:04.520
<v Speaker 1>for thirty years seems stronger than somebody who puts it

0:19:04.560 --> 0:19:08.040
<v Speaker 1>in their backyard, you know, once a year for the

0:19:08.119 --> 0:19:13.159
<v Speaker 1>last five years. Let's talk a little bit about Ken Feinberg,

0:19:13.240 --> 0:19:17.760
<v Speaker 1>who is a renowned mediator. What was his role in this?

0:19:18.720 --> 0:19:24.320
<v Speaker 1>So Ken plays the role of an honest broker. When

0:19:24.320 --> 0:19:28.639
<v Speaker 1>you're trying to settle a case, each side poses and

0:19:28.800 --> 0:19:33.720
<v Speaker 1>postures and rattles sabers, and the other side discounts half

0:19:33.760 --> 0:19:38.399
<v Speaker 1>of what they say. Having a neutral mediator who is

0:19:38.840 --> 0:19:43.160
<v Speaker 1>well respected, nobody who's better respected at this than Ken Feinberg,

0:19:43.760 --> 0:19:46.880
<v Speaker 1>who can say things to both sides and and they

0:19:46.880 --> 0:19:50.960
<v Speaker 1>will listen and they will believe it is very valuable.

0:19:51.640 --> 0:19:53.879
<v Speaker 1>Think of the things he's been in June, you know,

0:19:53.960 --> 0:19:58.400
<v Speaker 1>most recently the Boeing seven seven MAX, the Penn States

0:19:58.520 --> 0:20:02.280
<v Speaker 1>and Dusky Sex and O v W g M with

0:20:02.320 --> 0:20:05.200
<v Speaker 1>the ignition switched all the way back to the BP

0:20:05.440 --> 0:20:10.600
<v Speaker 1>deep Water. So he knows how to deal with cases

0:20:10.640 --> 0:20:15.200
<v Speaker 1>that are very complicated, cases that involve a lot of emotion.

0:20:15.640 --> 0:20:20.280
<v Speaker 1>So he's the right guy. I'm also curious about the

0:20:20.359 --> 0:20:23.960
<v Speaker 1>transparency here. The estimate is that there are at least

0:20:23.960 --> 0:20:27.440
<v Speaker 1>a hundred and twenty five thousand claims. That's more than

0:20:27.480 --> 0:20:32.600
<v Speaker 1>twice the amount of cases Buyer has previously disclosed. So

0:20:32.920 --> 0:20:38.159
<v Speaker 1>why this lack of disclosure of all these cases? Well,

0:20:38.440 --> 0:20:41.240
<v Speaker 1>the fifty two thousand number, which appeared to I think

0:20:41.240 --> 0:20:44.119
<v Speaker 1>in the April April of this year quarterly statement that

0:20:44.200 --> 0:20:48.399
<v Speaker 1>buyer files, Um, what are the cases, according to buyer

0:20:48.680 --> 0:20:53.440
<v Speaker 1>are cases that have actually been filed in US courts.

0:20:53.600 --> 0:20:56.080
<v Speaker 1>How you get from fifty two thousand to two or

0:20:56.119 --> 0:20:59.520
<v Speaker 1>two and a half times that number is by making

0:20:59.560 --> 0:21:02.520
<v Speaker 1>an s in that of all of the cases that

0:21:02.640 --> 0:21:06.760
<v Speaker 1>have not been filed but that could be filed or

0:21:06.840 --> 0:21:09.800
<v Speaker 1>will be filed at some point in the future. Some

0:21:09.920 --> 0:21:12.560
<v Speaker 1>buyer's point of view as well, we don't really know

0:21:12.640 --> 0:21:17.200
<v Speaker 1>how to estimate that number. That's a guess. Uh sure

0:21:17.240 --> 0:21:19.560
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be more than fifty two thousands. But

0:21:19.640 --> 0:21:21.600
<v Speaker 1>the number we know for sure is is the number

0:21:21.600 --> 0:21:25.200
<v Speaker 1>that has actually been filed. In the Bloomberg story, did

0:21:25.240 --> 0:21:30.439
<v Speaker 1>it refer to some lawyers not filing cases under an

0:21:30.440 --> 0:21:34.680
<v Speaker 1>agreement with buyer? Yeah, Timlow had a good story, Jeffiel,

0:21:34.680 --> 0:21:36.760
<v Speaker 1>We had a good story that I saw in the terminal.

0:21:37.480 --> 0:21:41.160
<v Speaker 1>So apparently there is an agreement, and this is not uncommon,

0:21:41.520 --> 0:21:45.720
<v Speaker 1>an agreement that while settlement is going on, everybody who

0:21:45.720 --> 0:21:48.119
<v Speaker 1>had not everybody, but you know, the people who agree

0:21:48.200 --> 0:21:52.520
<v Speaker 1>to this, don't just keep wasting your money and our

0:21:52.600 --> 0:21:57.199
<v Speaker 1>money filing lawsuits. If there's a settlement, you will be

0:21:57.240 --> 0:21:59.840
<v Speaker 1>included in it, but you don't have to go to

0:21:59.880 --> 0:22:03.240
<v Speaker 1>the expensive filing the lawsuit. We don't have to go

0:22:03.280 --> 0:22:06.320
<v Speaker 1>to the expense of answering it. That will need to

0:22:06.359 --> 0:22:09.560
<v Speaker 1>actually more money on the table for settlement. So it's

0:22:09.600 --> 0:22:13.040
<v Speaker 1>not a bad IDEA Buyer is still going forward with

0:22:13.119 --> 0:22:17.639
<v Speaker 1>appeals of early cases. It lost. Is that usual in

0:22:17.680 --> 0:22:23.080
<v Speaker 1>a settlement like this, Well, they can't abandon their appeals. Um.

0:22:23.200 --> 0:22:26.920
<v Speaker 1>They have to show the other side that if there

0:22:27.119 --> 0:22:30.399
<v Speaker 1>is no settlement, um, we are going to put you

0:22:30.480 --> 0:22:33.280
<v Speaker 1>through the appeals process every time you win a case.

0:22:33.760 --> 0:22:37.639
<v Speaker 1>So that's part of buyer showing its strength uh to

0:22:37.920 --> 0:22:41.360
<v Speaker 1>the plaintiff's attorneys. So that's part of the everybody kind

0:22:41.359 --> 0:22:45.479
<v Speaker 1>of posturing to show the other side the consequences of

0:22:45.560 --> 0:22:49.639
<v Speaker 1>not reaching a settlement. So Buyer has set aside reportedly

0:22:49.720 --> 0:22:53.240
<v Speaker 1>ten billion dollars for this altogether eight billion for these

0:22:53.240 --> 0:22:56.760
<v Speaker 1>current cases and two billion for future With all these

0:22:56.880 --> 0:23:00.920
<v Speaker 1>ifs and cases outstanding and lawyers nuts uddling, is it

0:23:01.000 --> 0:23:04.240
<v Speaker 1>possible that Buyer won't be able to come in at

0:23:04.280 --> 0:23:08.080
<v Speaker 1>that number. It is possible. It's possible that the number

0:23:08.200 --> 0:23:11.240
<v Speaker 1>won't make sense to both sides. It's possible that when

0:23:11.280 --> 0:23:15.200
<v Speaker 1>you split eight billion dollars or ten billion dollars amongst

0:23:15.200 --> 0:23:17.440
<v Speaker 1>all of the cases, that there are too many cases

0:23:17.480 --> 0:23:20.200
<v Speaker 1>that will get too little money to get those people

0:23:20.200 --> 0:23:23.520
<v Speaker 1>to agree to a settlement. And then they would say, well, pious,

0:23:23.520 --> 0:23:25.800
<v Speaker 1>you've got to put in more money. And buyer could say,

0:23:25.880 --> 0:23:29.360
<v Speaker 1>all right, we're putting another billion dollars or another two

0:23:29.359 --> 0:23:33.200
<v Speaker 1>billion dollars, as I could say, never mind, because for

0:23:33.320 --> 0:23:37.520
<v Speaker 1>another billion dollars we can litigate every one of these

0:23:37.560 --> 0:23:42.399
<v Speaker 1>cases forever. So the eight billion or the ten billion

0:23:42.440 --> 0:23:45.840
<v Speaker 1>dollar may not be found, but it's a clear signal

0:23:46.160 --> 0:23:49.320
<v Speaker 1>of the range. It's a clear signal to plaintiffs when

0:23:49.359 --> 0:23:53.720
<v Speaker 1>this gets split up, don't be expecting twenty billion dollars. Now,

0:23:53.880 --> 0:23:56.760
<v Speaker 1>why settle If you're going to keep round up on

0:23:56.800 --> 0:23:59.560
<v Speaker 1>the market, it's going to continue to be sold without

0:23:59.640 --> 0:24:03.800
<v Speaker 1>safe d warnings. That is the weirdest part of the

0:24:03.840 --> 0:24:09.200
<v Speaker 1>settlement stories On the plaintiff side, If you're really worried

0:24:09.440 --> 0:24:13.040
<v Speaker 1>about people getting cancer, and you really believe that round

0:24:13.119 --> 0:24:16.280
<v Speaker 1>up causes the cancer, why would you agree to a

0:24:16.320 --> 0:24:20.440
<v Speaker 1>settlement along the lines of yeah, keep selling it without

0:24:20.520 --> 0:24:23.920
<v Speaker 1>the warning. Our complaint is that it's unsafe. Our complaint

0:24:24.000 --> 0:24:26.160
<v Speaker 1>is that you failed to warn people. But as long

0:24:26.200 --> 0:24:29.199
<v Speaker 1>as you pay us, we're okay with you continuing to

0:24:29.280 --> 0:24:33.480
<v Speaker 1>do that. From the buyer side, it seems like, well,

0:24:33.560 --> 0:24:37.240
<v Speaker 1>if they exercise that right and keep selling it without

0:24:37.280 --> 0:24:40.720
<v Speaker 1>a warning, seems us if they're asking for another whole

0:24:40.920 --> 0:24:45.000
<v Speaker 1>batch of new cases from people making the same claims.

0:24:45.560 --> 0:24:48.879
<v Speaker 1>So that part of the rumored settlement thing is a

0:24:48.920 --> 0:24:52.000
<v Speaker 1>real head scratcher from both points of view. You talked

0:24:52.000 --> 0:24:54.159
<v Speaker 1>about how the CEO, you know, the company wants to

0:24:54.200 --> 0:24:57.200
<v Speaker 1>put this behind them, and the stock has gone down

0:24:57.280 --> 0:25:00.119
<v Speaker 1>so much. Explain what's been happening with the c go

0:25:00.320 --> 0:25:05.400
<v Speaker 1>through this. So the CEO has had some ups and downs. Um,

0:25:05.440 --> 0:25:10.560
<v Speaker 1>he is the Uh, he's the architect of this acquisition. Uh.

0:25:10.640 --> 0:25:15.560
<v Speaker 1>It was a big acquisition, over sixty billion dollars. Widely concerned,

0:25:15.560 --> 0:25:20.679
<v Speaker 1>who have considered you've been a failure? Um, people wonder

0:25:20.720 --> 0:25:24.359
<v Speaker 1>how could you have bought all of these liabilities? Didn't

0:25:24.359 --> 0:25:27.320
<v Speaker 1>you do due diligence? Well, June, of course they did

0:25:27.440 --> 0:25:29.680
<v Speaker 1>due diligence. They took on the risk. They just didn't

0:25:29.680 --> 0:25:32.280
<v Speaker 1>expect it to blow up like this. So this has

0:25:32.359 --> 0:25:35.840
<v Speaker 1>not been good for him. He's been under a lot

0:25:35.920 --> 0:25:40.520
<v Speaker 1>of pressure recently, it's eased a little bit. Um. The

0:25:40.600 --> 0:25:45.520
<v Speaker 1>company as a whole buyer has done reasonably well. Uh

0:25:45.720 --> 0:25:50.600
<v Speaker 1>Monsanto has done reasonably well other than this litigation. But

0:25:50.800 --> 0:25:53.880
<v Speaker 1>the stock price bumped up um when the stories ran

0:25:54.000 --> 0:25:58.359
<v Speaker 1>this week about the potential settlement, and the rumors are

0:25:58.560 --> 0:26:05.000
<v Speaker 1>that the CEO, gentleman named Herman, has regained more support

0:26:05.320 --> 0:26:08.720
<v Speaker 1>of the equivalent of his board of directors by telling

0:26:08.760 --> 0:26:12.840
<v Speaker 1>them that he is committed to settling these cases. Does

0:26:12.880 --> 0:26:17.960
<v Speaker 1>this put his strategy of pairing pharmaceuticals, consumer health, and

0:26:18.080 --> 0:26:22.359
<v Speaker 1>agriculture to the test. It does put it to the test,

0:26:22.800 --> 0:26:25.960
<v Speaker 1>although if you look at it from an investment point

0:26:26.000 --> 0:26:28.880
<v Speaker 1>of view, you can you can tell two stories. One

0:26:29.160 --> 0:26:34.680
<v Speaker 1>is these are all good areas. Agriculture isn't going away.

0:26:34.720 --> 0:26:39.800
<v Speaker 1>We need improvements in agriculture globally. Consumer health good field,

0:26:40.080 --> 0:26:45.400
<v Speaker 1>pharmaceuticals also a good field. Three good lines of business.

0:26:45.440 --> 0:26:49.440
<v Speaker 1>The question about the strategy is, if you're an investor,

0:26:50.119 --> 0:26:52.959
<v Speaker 1>do you need all three of them in the same company? Well,

0:26:53.000 --> 0:26:55.919
<v Speaker 1>couldn't you just buy shares of a farmer company and

0:26:55.920 --> 0:26:58.879
<v Speaker 1>then shares in a different consumer health company and shares

0:26:58.920 --> 0:27:03.159
<v Speaker 1>it a different cultural company um and and get the

0:27:03.200 --> 0:27:07.000
<v Speaker 1>same results. And if you're actually not industry and agriculture,

0:27:07.119 --> 0:27:10.960
<v Speaker 1>then you would just buy Farma and the Summer help. So, uh,

0:27:11.480 --> 0:27:14.119
<v Speaker 1>all three of them are good areas to be in

0:27:14.280 --> 0:27:18.720
<v Speaker 1>going forward. But his strategy brings up the constant strategy

0:27:18.880 --> 0:27:22.159
<v Speaker 1>question of the scope of the firm, the constant investor

0:27:22.240 --> 0:27:25.479
<v Speaker 1>question of wait a minute, wait a minute, unlock the value.

0:27:25.600 --> 0:27:28.679
<v Speaker 1>Break these things up, because we can always put them

0:27:28.760 --> 0:27:32.080
<v Speaker 1>back together by the way we construct our portfolio by

0:27:32.080 --> 0:27:34.959
<v Speaker 1>buying stock in three different companies. But some of us

0:27:35.080 --> 0:27:37.919
<v Speaker 1>just want to be in Parma and we would value

0:27:37.960 --> 0:27:41.760
<v Speaker 1>your farming division, we would value it higher if it's

0:27:41.800 --> 0:27:45.560
<v Speaker 1>stood alone. So that question will continue to haunt the

0:27:45.640 --> 0:27:49.720
<v Speaker 1>CEO and Eric, whose approvals are needed at the company

0:27:49.760 --> 0:27:52.119
<v Speaker 1>and in the courts for these deals to go through,

0:27:52.240 --> 0:27:55.600
<v Speaker 1>for the settlement to go through. So that's a tricky

0:27:55.680 --> 0:28:01.200
<v Speaker 1>question because at the courts you have the the federal level,

0:28:01.440 --> 0:28:05.280
<v Speaker 1>there is the big multi district litigation proceeding going on

0:28:06.080 --> 0:28:10.119
<v Speaker 1>in California in front of Jocabra, and then they're also

0:28:10.400 --> 0:28:13.240
<v Speaker 1>are state courts. The suits we've seen have been in

0:28:13.280 --> 0:28:17.520
<v Speaker 1>California and are sort of gathered under California's version of

0:28:17.840 --> 0:28:22.680
<v Speaker 1>multi disciation to speeding. But there there are cases all

0:28:22.680 --> 0:28:27.440
<v Speaker 1>over in different states, so the mechanics of this settlement

0:28:27.560 --> 0:28:30.640
<v Speaker 1>will will not be easy. This is true in all

0:28:30.680 --> 0:28:34.000
<v Speaker 1>of these mass torts types of things. The mechanics are

0:28:34.040 --> 0:28:38.080
<v Speaker 1>difficult and will take some time. So it will probably

0:28:38.200 --> 0:28:41.959
<v Speaker 1>see if there is a settlement. Progress is an announcement

0:28:42.040 --> 0:28:47.440
<v Speaker 1>of a settlement in principle. I'm emphasizing in principle because

0:28:47.520 --> 0:28:49.160
<v Speaker 1>then there's still a lot of hard work to put

0:28:49.200 --> 0:28:53.840
<v Speaker 1>together the details. And finally, does this settlement remind you

0:28:53.920 --> 0:28:56.800
<v Speaker 1>of any other mass towards settlements in the past where

0:28:56.840 --> 0:28:59.400
<v Speaker 1>it's sort of it seems a lot of piecemeal stuff.

0:29:00.040 --> 0:29:03.200
<v Speaker 1>The most recent one I can think of is the

0:29:03.240 --> 0:29:08.360
<v Speaker 1>opioid settlements, where the opio settlement or non solment, where

0:29:08.440 --> 0:29:13.800
<v Speaker 1>you have states, you have cities, you have counties filing suits,

0:29:13.960 --> 0:29:17.800
<v Speaker 1>you have private people filing suits, lots of different moving parts,

0:29:17.880 --> 0:29:20.800
<v Speaker 1>including people who don't talk to each other. Because the

0:29:20.880 --> 0:29:24.120
<v Speaker 1>city of Chicago had anything to do with the state

0:29:24.240 --> 0:29:29.040
<v Speaker 1>of Arizona typically not. So that's the other recent one

0:29:29.120 --> 0:29:34.080
<v Speaker 1>where the mechanics of blocking that down very very difficult.

0:29:34.520 --> 0:29:37.360
<v Speaker 1>Thanks Eric, that's Eric Gordon, a professor at the Raw

0:29:37.440 --> 0:29:40.360
<v Speaker 1>School of Business at the University of Michigan. And that's

0:29:40.400 --> 0:29:42.800
<v Speaker 1>it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. Remember you can

0:29:42.840 --> 0:29:44.840
<v Speaker 1>always get the latest legal news by going to our

0:29:44.880 --> 0:29:48.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud,

0:29:48.960 --> 0:29:53.200
<v Speaker 1>or Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm Jude Grosso.

0:29:53.400 --> 0:29:55.840
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for listening, and remember to tune to

0:29:55.880 --> 0:29:58.280
<v Speaker 1>the Blomberg Law Show weeknights. Attend them Eastern