WEBVTT - Senate Passes Bill Rolling Back Dodd-Frank Rules

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.440
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.720
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Yesterday, the US

0:00:22.800 --> 0:00:25.720
<v Speaker 1>Senate took the most concrete steps so far to rollback

0:00:25.880 --> 0:00:28.280
<v Speaker 1>rules adopted in the wake of the two thousand eight

0:00:28.320 --> 0:00:31.880
<v Speaker 1>financial crisis by passing a bill amending the Dodd Frank

0:00:31.960 --> 0:00:36.120
<v Speaker 1>Act and providing considerable regulatory relief to smaller lenders such

0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:39.640
<v Speaker 1>as regional and community banks the name's sake of the

0:00:39.640 --> 0:00:43.120
<v Speaker 1>Dodd Frank Bill. Former Congressman Barney Frank spoke with Bloomberg

0:00:43.200 --> 0:00:47.519
<v Speaker 1>about the proposed Senate changes last Tuesday. Um, I I

0:00:47.560 --> 0:00:50.360
<v Speaker 1>think some of the critics in the Laptop being too our.

0:00:50.920 --> 0:00:54.280
<v Speaker 1>It has one good thing. If this bill passes, that's

0:00:54.360 --> 0:00:56.640
<v Speaker 1>the end of the debate over the over the financial

0:00:56.640 --> 0:00:59.680
<v Speaker 1>reform bill. In other words, yes, this film makes changes

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:01.760
<v Speaker 1>the cup but which I don't like. But by the

0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:05.800
<v Speaker 1>very fact that it doesn't change almost everything else, it's

0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:08.720
<v Speaker 1>going to confirm them. Joining us is Robert Hockett, a

0:01:08.720 --> 0:01:12.280
<v Speaker 1>professor at Cornell University Law School. Bob, what's your reaction

0:01:12.480 --> 0:01:16.000
<v Speaker 1>to what Barney Frank said about this bill being the

0:01:16.120 --> 0:01:20.080
<v Speaker 1>end of the debate over the financial of over financial reform.

0:01:20.360 --> 0:01:22.280
<v Speaker 1>H Well, thanks so much for having me on. So

0:01:22.520 --> 0:01:25.479
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna surprise you, uh, in one sense, I think

0:01:25.560 --> 0:01:27.800
<v Speaker 1>and say that I actually kind of agree with Barney

0:01:27.800 --> 0:01:31.520
<v Speaker 1>Frank on this one. That being said, I do nevertheless

0:01:31.560 --> 0:01:34.440
<v Speaker 1>think it's a good idea for the Senators, and I'm

0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:37.520
<v Speaker 1>sorry the Dems in the Senate who object to the

0:01:37.600 --> 0:01:41.080
<v Speaker 1>change to kind of keep sounding the alarm, because this

0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:42.720
<v Speaker 1>is not the end of it, right. We now have

0:01:43.680 --> 0:01:47.520
<v Speaker 1>Representative Henzerling's bill over in the House to be reconciled

0:01:47.560 --> 0:01:50.040
<v Speaker 1>with this one, and that one is far more radical.

0:01:50.400 --> 0:01:52.680
<v Speaker 1>And so I think by kind of maintaining, you kind

0:01:52.680 --> 0:01:55.120
<v Speaker 1>of holding the line as they are in the Senate,

0:01:55.360 --> 0:01:58.680
<v Speaker 1>the progressive Dems there are i think, signaling that we

0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:02.720
<v Speaker 1>won't go any fur. They're by way of retreat from God. Frank. Bob,

0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:09.920
<v Speaker 1>what are the core changes in the Senate bill? Frank? Yeah, so,

0:02:10.000 --> 0:02:13.040
<v Speaker 1>on the surface, um, you might say the optics are

0:02:13.120 --> 0:02:15.160
<v Speaker 1>especially bad. On the surface, they look pretty extensive, But

0:02:15.160 --> 0:02:17.280
<v Speaker 1>then when you look sort of underneath, they're not nearly

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:20.120
<v Speaker 1>as bad as one might thought or expected. Again getting

0:02:20.200 --> 0:02:22.920
<v Speaker 1>given to sort of control right in the in the house.

0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:26.400
<v Speaker 1>So first of all, the old Siffy threshold of fifty

0:02:26.720 --> 0:02:29.840
<v Speaker 1>billion has been raised to two hundred fifty. Now at

0:02:29.840 --> 0:02:33.760
<v Speaker 1>first that sounds quite remarkable, right. It essentially releases about

0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:37.120
<v Speaker 1>two thirds of the large banks from sort of fifty designation. Uh.

0:02:37.160 --> 0:02:39.119
<v Speaker 1>And in that sense, you know, optically, that looks terrible.

0:02:39.120 --> 0:02:40.400
<v Speaker 1>They would have been a much better way to do

0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:42.520
<v Speaker 1>this if you wanted to sort of differentiate between the

0:02:42.520 --> 0:02:44.359
<v Speaker 1>mega banks and they're not so megabanks, you might have

0:02:44.440 --> 0:02:46.360
<v Speaker 1>raised it to a hundred or hundred fifty or something.

0:02:46.639 --> 0:02:48.840
<v Speaker 1>On the other hand, again, under the surface, things aren't

0:02:48.880 --> 0:02:51.400
<v Speaker 1>quite as bad as they might look. Because the thing is,

0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:55.280
<v Speaker 1>the Fed retains the discretion to regulate the banks that

0:02:55.320 --> 0:02:59.160
<v Speaker 1>are under that new cify side size but still above

0:02:59.160 --> 0:03:01.480
<v Speaker 1>tend above a two billion in the same way that

0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:04.639
<v Speaker 1>it has. It's just that it's not required by legislation

0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:07.240
<v Speaker 1>to do so. So things might very well stay the

0:03:07.280 --> 0:03:10.560
<v Speaker 1>same if the said makes prudent decisions about how best

0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:14.480
<v Speaker 1>to regulate those sub dollar banks that are still over

0:03:14.560 --> 0:03:19.600
<v Speaker 1>fifty billion dollar branks now shared Brown. Other senators, Progressive

0:03:19.600 --> 0:03:24.040
<v Speaker 1>senators like Elizabeth Warren, have warned that these changes would

0:03:24.080 --> 0:03:28.440
<v Speaker 1>harm consumers and increase risk in the financial system. Do

0:03:28.520 --> 0:03:32.120
<v Speaker 1>you see that from this particular bill, Well, they certainly

0:03:32.120 --> 0:03:35.400
<v Speaker 1>opened the door to that possibility. Um. At the same time, however,

0:03:35.480 --> 0:03:38.360
<v Speaker 1>possibility itself is probably a little bit remote at this point.

0:03:38.480 --> 0:03:41.640
<v Speaker 1>So take two examples, UM, some of the underwriting, some

0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:45.240
<v Speaker 1>of the mortgage underwriting standards for banks under ten billion,

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the so called community banks have been sort of rendered

0:03:49.160 --> 0:03:52.240
<v Speaker 1>a bit less stringent than they were made after that

0:03:52.400 --> 0:03:54.680
<v Speaker 1>of course, sounds terrible on the surface and a end

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:58.480
<v Speaker 1>it's potentially dangerous, But there's a condition attached, um that

0:03:58.600 --> 0:04:02.000
<v Speaker 1>actually some extats a significant extent and mitigates the risk.

0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:05.160
<v Speaker 1>And that is that that particular relief is only afforded

0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:08.680
<v Speaker 1>the smaller banks if they're not selling on selling their

0:04:08.680 --> 0:04:12.440
<v Speaker 1>mortgages off to securitizers or to g S e s. Right.

0:04:12.760 --> 0:04:16.080
<v Speaker 1>In other words, UM, they enjoy that particular relief only

0:04:16.200 --> 0:04:20.040
<v Speaker 1>if they are not in effect communicating their possibly risk

0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:23.560
<v Speaker 1>your mortgages to the wider financial system. Now, of course

0:04:23.560 --> 0:04:26.440
<v Speaker 1>it could still imperil those banks, but because they're smaller.

0:04:26.440 --> 0:04:28.599
<v Speaker 1>When they're under ten billion, things look a little bit

0:04:28.640 --> 0:04:31.320
<v Speaker 1>less dangerous than you might initially have thought. So that's

0:04:31.120 --> 0:04:32.840
<v Speaker 1>not to say that I endorsed the change. I'm just

0:04:32.839 --> 0:04:34.880
<v Speaker 1>just I'm just saying that it's not quite as awful

0:04:34.880 --> 0:04:37.480
<v Speaker 1>as one might have fraught or expected. Sort Of similarly

0:04:37.480 --> 0:04:39.719
<v Speaker 1>with the Bulker rule. Right that the under ten billion,

0:04:39.800 --> 0:04:42.839
<v Speaker 1>the so called community banks are getting relief from the

0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:45.080
<v Speaker 1>so called Broker rule, and on the surface set doesn't

0:04:45.080 --> 0:04:47.560
<v Speaker 1>look very good either. Right. On the other hand of

0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:49.960
<v Speaker 1>the backstory here is that the smaller community banks don't

0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 1>tend to do a lot of trading securities anyway, so

0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:55.520
<v Speaker 1>it's not altogether clear that the Folker rule would have

0:04:55.520 --> 0:04:58.280
<v Speaker 1>been making that much difference, Whereas the so called compliance

0:04:58.320 --> 0:05:00.960
<v Speaker 1>costs to sort of documenting what you're doings to show

0:05:01.000 --> 0:05:04.400
<v Speaker 1>that you're in compliance with Polker has been have been

0:05:04.440 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 1>perhaps a bit higher for the lower I mean for

0:05:06.440 --> 0:05:08.760
<v Speaker 1>the smaller banks at least as a proportion of their

0:05:08.800 --> 0:05:11.560
<v Speaker 1>total expenditures than they have to the larger banks. You

0:05:11.600 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 1>mentioned House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensling, who has

0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:20.520
<v Speaker 1>said he wanted to include bigger revisions. Yeah, then we're

0:05:20.520 --> 0:05:24.120
<v Speaker 1>passed by the Senate. What is he referring to? What

0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:26.760
<v Speaker 1>has he had? What does he have in mind? Um,

0:05:26.800 --> 0:05:29.200
<v Speaker 1>he thinks have quite a few things in mind, and

0:05:29.240 --> 0:05:31.440
<v Speaker 1>in my view, almost all of them are are quite

0:05:31.480 --> 0:05:35.840
<v Speaker 1>irresponsible and indeed reckless. I mean, one case in point is, uh,

0:05:35.880 --> 0:05:38.719
<v Speaker 1>he actually wants to give um a a sort of

0:05:38.720 --> 0:05:41.720
<v Speaker 1>a regulatory pass to a number of very large private

0:05:41.760 --> 0:05:45.520
<v Speaker 1>equity firms that sort of build themselves as so called

0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:49.200
<v Speaker 1>business development companies. UM. So what they're essentially, what these

0:05:49.240 --> 0:05:52.839
<v Speaker 1>firms do is they're basically private private equity firms that

0:05:52.960 --> 0:05:56.000
<v Speaker 1>pretend to be doing and maybe sometimes actually far doing, um,

0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:58.919
<v Speaker 1>sort of venture capital type raising for small businesses. And

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:00.320
<v Speaker 1>then they say, oh, you know, we're being up the

0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:02.800
<v Speaker 1>job creators and so forth. Um. But it's it's very

0:06:02.839 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 1>easy to sort of say that you're doing that and

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:09.200
<v Speaker 1>nevertheless engage in very risky lending practice or risky investment practices.

0:06:09.760 --> 0:06:11.920
<v Speaker 1>And so it makes sense that firms like this would

0:06:11.920 --> 0:06:15.000
<v Speaker 1>be overseen by the regulators, and the idea of just

0:06:15.040 --> 0:06:17.159
<v Speaker 1>sort of letting them free, you know, sort of putting

0:06:17.160 --> 0:06:20.400
<v Speaker 1>them loose of all regulations, simply onto the pretext that

0:06:20.480 --> 0:06:24.719
<v Speaker 1>they are so called job creator business development companies. I

0:06:24.760 --> 0:06:28.560
<v Speaker 1>think it's just again highly highly risky, I mean highly reckless.

0:06:28.680 --> 0:06:30.719
<v Speaker 1>UM a lot of other things that ten really wants

0:06:30.720 --> 0:06:34.080
<v Speaker 1>to do as well. I think, at last last I checked,

0:06:34.440 --> 0:06:37.680
<v Speaker 1>he wants to remove even the FED discretion to regulate

0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:41.640
<v Speaker 1>the under two billion but above fifty billion dollar banks

0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:44.520
<v Speaker 1>as cities. UM wants to sort of cut back, in

0:06:44.560 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 1>other words, on the regulator's capacity to apply enhance potential

0:06:49.640 --> 0:06:53.960
<v Speaker 1>regulations to banks when they aren't really freshly. We'll have

0:06:54.040 --> 0:06:56.719
<v Speaker 1>to stop there and wait until he actually proposes these

0:06:56.720 --> 0:06:59.920
<v Speaker 1>things and talk again. Thanks as always. That's Robert Howckett, Professor,

0:07:00.040 --> 0:07:09.480
<v Speaker 1>Cornell University Law School. Is the world's most popular weed killer. Toxic.

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:14.360
<v Speaker 1>More than seven hundred farmers, landscapers, and gardeners are suing Monsanto,

0:07:14.760 --> 0:07:17.640
<v Speaker 1>claiming that exposure to the glypha sate in round Up

0:07:17.800 --> 0:07:20.520
<v Speaker 1>gave them cancer. In a pre trial hearing, the San

0:07:20.560 --> 0:07:23.920
<v Speaker 1>Francisco judge overseeing all three hundred of the federal cases

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:28.040
<v Speaker 1>against Monsanto said that the opinions of the experts testifying

0:07:28.040 --> 0:07:32.720
<v Speaker 1>against Monsanto are quote shaky, potentially devastating development for the

0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:36.000
<v Speaker 1>cases getting to trial. Joining me is Jane Eggan, a

0:07:36.040 --> 0:07:40.640
<v Speaker 1>professor at Widener University Delaware Law School. Gene first explained

0:07:40.680 --> 0:07:45.200
<v Speaker 1>the basis of the lawsuits against Montsanto. What are they about, Well,

0:07:45.320 --> 0:07:51.920
<v Speaker 1>essentially their toxic tort lawsuits. They're brought by various farmers, landscapers,

0:07:51.960 --> 0:07:56.480
<v Speaker 1>gardeners against the company claiming that they developed cancer as

0:07:56.520 --> 0:08:00.920
<v Speaker 1>a result of being exposed to round up. During relatively

0:08:00.920 --> 0:08:05.240
<v Speaker 1>long period of time, Federal Judge Vince Chabria heard about

0:08:05.760 --> 0:08:11.080
<v Speaker 1>from about a dozen witnesses, including epidemiologist, toxicologist, statisticians, and

0:08:11.120 --> 0:08:15.120
<v Speaker 1>an oncologist to decide who should be allowed to testify

0:08:15.200 --> 0:08:18.800
<v Speaker 1>as experts before a jury. What was he looking for

0:08:18.960 --> 0:08:23.200
<v Speaker 1>to make this determination, Well, essentially, this kind of hearing

0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>is twofold UM. The first part that has to be

0:08:25.680 --> 0:08:30.480
<v Speaker 1>decided first is whether the expert evidence of causation of

0:08:30.560 --> 0:08:33.760
<v Speaker 1>one or both parties is admissible at trial under the

0:08:33.840 --> 0:08:36.440
<v Speaker 1>rules of evidence, And because the plaintiffs have the burden

0:08:36.440 --> 0:08:39.720
<v Speaker 1>of proof, their evidence is going to be the most

0:08:39.920 --> 0:08:44.840
<v Speaker 1>key in the UH this initial stage. UH. Second, after

0:08:45.040 --> 0:08:48.800
<v Speaker 1>determining that, the court will look at what the judge

0:08:48.840 --> 0:08:51.400
<v Speaker 1>has seemed to be admissible evidence and determine whether there's

0:08:51.440 --> 0:08:54.240
<v Speaker 1>a genuine issue of material fact that needs to go

0:08:54.360 --> 0:08:57.400
<v Speaker 1>to the fact finder. Uh. If, on the other hand,

0:08:57.880 --> 0:09:00.720
<v Speaker 1>no reasonable jury could find for the plaint if, then

0:09:00.880 --> 0:09:05.920
<v Speaker 1>the action will be dismissed. So the key to admissibility

0:09:06.000 --> 0:09:10.119
<v Speaker 1>is essentially a two part test, which is that the

0:09:10.200 --> 0:09:14.640
<v Speaker 1>scientific evidence that it forms the basis for the expert's

0:09:14.720 --> 0:09:19.800
<v Speaker 1>testimony must be both reliable and relevant. Reliability essentially means

0:09:19.800 --> 0:09:23.960
<v Speaker 1>that it's scientifically sound based on a reliable technique such

0:09:24.000 --> 0:09:28.280
<v Speaker 1>as epidemiology, which this is. But there can be other

0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:32.360
<v Speaker 1>problems that are associated with reliability, such as what the

0:09:32.360 --> 0:09:36.680
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court has caused called an analytical gap between what

0:09:36.760 --> 0:09:40.520
<v Speaker 1>the studies actually show and what the expert testifying for

0:09:40.559 --> 0:09:44.840
<v Speaker 1>the party is concluding about it. And this seems to

0:09:44.880 --> 0:09:47.800
<v Speaker 1>be one of the things that the judge is particularly

0:09:47.880 --> 0:09:51.240
<v Speaker 1>concerned about with regard to the plaintiff's evidence. In fact,

0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:54.480
<v Speaker 1>as you suggested, he's telegraphed through his comments that he's

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:57.959
<v Speaker 1>skeptical of the plaintiff's expert evidence, but I think he's

0:09:57.960 --> 0:10:01.880
<v Speaker 1>stopped short of saying that it is not admissible at

0:10:01.960 --> 0:10:06.080
<v Speaker 1>least at this juncture, without knowing or looking into the

0:10:06.120 --> 0:10:10.120
<v Speaker 1>evidence a little bit more closely. UM, because he has

0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:16.240
<v Speaker 1>suggested that uh, he has correctly I correctly stated that

0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:19.000
<v Speaker 1>it is not up to him to weigh this evidence

0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:22.560
<v Speaker 1>to decide whether roundup can cause cancer. It is rather

0:10:23.080 --> 0:10:25.640
<v Speaker 1>up to him to decide what is reliable enough to

0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:29.359
<v Speaker 1>get to the jury. So the toxicity of this herbicide

0:10:29.360 --> 0:10:34.079
<v Speaker 1>has been debated by scientists worldwide for more than thirty years.

0:10:34.120 --> 0:10:37.240
<v Speaker 1>What came out during this hearing to lead the judge

0:10:37.280 --> 0:10:40.840
<v Speaker 1>to say that the evidence that glypha sate is currently

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:47.880
<v Speaker 1>causing non Hodgkins lymphoma in human beings is pretty sparse. Well,

0:10:47.920 --> 0:10:51.080
<v Speaker 1>I think the first thing is that the defendants are

0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:56.880
<v Speaker 1>that Monfanto is relying on a relatively newly published study,

0:10:57.040 --> 0:11:01.360
<v Speaker 1>very newly published study about agricultural workers that looked at

0:11:01.360 --> 0:11:06.520
<v Speaker 1>fifty four thousand agricultural workers and uh stated or concluded

0:11:06.600 --> 0:11:10.480
<v Speaker 1>that round up does not where glyphosate does not cause cancer.

0:11:11.640 --> 0:11:14.559
<v Speaker 1>So I think there's the weight of that, But again,

0:11:14.920 --> 0:11:16.600
<v Speaker 1>the court is not supposed to look at the weight

0:11:16.640 --> 0:11:20.040
<v Speaker 1>of it. Um he the judge, I think, was particularly

0:11:20.040 --> 0:11:24.439
<v Speaker 1>concerned with the failure of the plaintiff's attorney to are

0:11:24.520 --> 0:11:28.960
<v Speaker 1>the plaintiffs expert to actually account for confounding factors and

0:11:29.000 --> 0:11:31.200
<v Speaker 1>the studies that the plaintiffs were relying on and these

0:11:31.200 --> 0:11:36.920
<v Speaker 1>confounding factors were things like multiple pesticide exposures among the

0:11:36.960 --> 0:11:41.520
<v Speaker 1>people who were tested. So I think that this this

0:11:41.679 --> 0:11:46.920
<v Speaker 1>is really the first, very close and comprehensive look at

0:11:47.000 --> 0:11:50.200
<v Speaker 1>what we know about glycis sate. And I have to

0:11:50.240 --> 0:11:53.920
<v Speaker 1>say it's really startling to me that after thirty years,

0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:57.560
<v Speaker 1>we really know relatively little. And even the judge said,

0:11:57.679 --> 0:12:01.280
<v Speaker 1>we don't know whether it causes cancer. Well, let me

0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:03.880
<v Speaker 1>let me just ask you this because our reporter who

0:12:03.880 --> 0:12:06.080
<v Speaker 1>has been covering the trial said the judge gave a

0:12:06.120 --> 0:12:10.560
<v Speaker 1>strong indication that beat Rits, a public health professor at

0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:13.160
<v Speaker 1>U c l A, maybe the only witness he allows

0:12:13.200 --> 0:12:16.199
<v Speaker 1>to testify for the plaintiffs, and that even she's at

0:12:16.280 --> 0:12:20.520
<v Speaker 1>risk of being eliminated. Wouldn't that basically destroy the plaintiffs

0:12:20.600 --> 0:12:25.000
<v Speaker 1>cases if they didn't have expert witnesses. Absolutely yes, and

0:12:25.160 --> 0:12:27.800
<v Speaker 1>it probably would destroy the case. On a summary judgment

0:12:27.840 --> 0:12:32.800
<v Speaker 1>motion to dismiss before trial, Uh, if if your evidence

0:12:32.800 --> 0:12:35.719
<v Speaker 1>can't get in, if your plaintif your evidence can't get in,

0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:39.920
<v Speaker 1>then mon Santo wins dismissal, which would have an enormous

0:12:40.000 --> 0:12:44.600
<v Speaker 1>impact on this litigation. This is a multi district litigation,

0:12:44.800 --> 0:12:49.280
<v Speaker 1>which um is which means that all such cases in

0:12:49.320 --> 0:12:52.000
<v Speaker 1>the federal courts against Montfanto for exposure to glife of

0:12:52.080 --> 0:12:54.640
<v Speaker 1>faith have been transferred to this particular judge in the

0:12:54.640 --> 0:12:58.640
<v Speaker 1>Northern District of California's So uh, if the judge determines

0:12:58.679 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 1>the plaintiff's evidence can get in uh, the result would

0:13:01.920 --> 0:13:06.480
<v Speaker 1>apply to all cases. And there's upwards of three seventy

0:13:06.559 --> 0:13:11.240
<v Speaker 1>cases here. Let's talk about the judges influence not only

0:13:11.280 --> 0:13:14.800
<v Speaker 1>on these multi district cases, but thousands of other state

0:13:14.840 --> 0:13:18.800
<v Speaker 1>court cases against Montsanto across the country. He was joined

0:13:18.800 --> 0:13:23.200
<v Speaker 1>by a judge from Oakland who's handling hundreds of state claims,

0:13:23.280 --> 0:13:26.800
<v Speaker 1>and he invited other judges across the US handling thousands

0:13:26.800 --> 0:13:29.800
<v Speaker 1>more state court cases to make these proceedings part of

0:13:29.840 --> 0:13:35.880
<v Speaker 1>their record. So that's a lot of influence for one judge. Well, yes,

0:13:36.080 --> 0:13:39.920
<v Speaker 1>and UH that's a good point, um that he is

0:13:39.960 --> 0:13:44.680
<v Speaker 1>trying to make his hearing part of the record for

0:13:44.800 --> 0:13:48.000
<v Speaker 1>all of those state proceedings around the country. But I

0:13:48.040 --> 0:13:52.040
<v Speaker 1>think there's some procedural problems that are associated with that. Uh.

0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:56.040
<v Speaker 1>You know, in each of those uh jurisdictions, the parties

0:13:56.040 --> 0:13:57.920
<v Speaker 1>have a right to bring in their own experts, and

0:13:57.960 --> 0:13:59.920
<v Speaker 1>a right to bring in their own evidence and may

0:14:00.040 --> 0:14:04.920
<v Speaker 1>their own arguments. And also, um, the rules of admissibility

0:14:04.920 --> 0:14:07.160
<v Speaker 1>in some states are slightly different from the rules of

0:14:07.200 --> 0:14:10.240
<v Speaker 1>admissibility of evidence in the federal courts. So I think

0:14:10.240 --> 0:14:12.200
<v Speaker 1>there may be some problems with this, But I would

0:14:12.240 --> 0:14:15.440
<v Speaker 1>applaud the judge, on the other hand, for trying to

0:14:16.400 --> 0:14:22.920
<v Speaker 1>uh trying to uh make known what the issues are

0:14:23.000 --> 0:14:25.720
<v Speaker 1>in the case. I'm not sure that it will have

0:14:25.920 --> 0:14:29.680
<v Speaker 1>any direct influence on these other cases. However, as you

0:14:29.760 --> 0:14:37.240
<v Speaker 1>pointed out, it is likely to have an important indirect influence. UM. Also,

0:14:37.320 --> 0:14:39.880
<v Speaker 1>do we have about a minute here, but can you

0:14:40.000 --> 0:14:45.320
<v Speaker 1>explain how these often these product liability cases get settled

0:14:45.480 --> 0:14:50.360
<v Speaker 1>before trial based on a few cases? Okay? Well, often

0:14:50.400 --> 0:14:52.680
<v Speaker 1>they have these bell weather cases that go to trial,

0:14:53.280 --> 0:14:58.200
<v Speaker 1>and they tend to be cases that are each representative

0:14:58.240 --> 0:15:02.840
<v Speaker 1>of sort of a different category of of UH plaintiffs

0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:06.520
<v Speaker 1>in the case, and it gives the parties an opportunity

0:15:06.600 --> 0:15:12.400
<v Speaker 1>to change what will happen. We're running out of town.

0:15:12.440 --> 0:15:14.120
<v Speaker 1>I didn't give you enough time for that. That was

0:15:14.280 --> 0:15:18.280
<v Speaker 1>that's a really long long question, Thank you so much.

0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:20.640
<v Speaker 1>Though we learned a lot that's Gene Egg and professor

0:15:20.680 --> 0:15:23.920
<v Speaker 1>at Widener University Delaware Law School. Thanks for listening to

0:15:23.960 --> 0:15:27.280
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

0:15:27.320 --> 0:15:31.040
<v Speaker 1>the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

0:15:31.080 --> 0:15:35.560
<v Speaker 1>com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg