Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio. Now,
Speaker 1: if any of you guys ever seen one of these
Speaker 1: bad things for real, We've burned almost every physical book
Speaker 1: in the country. It's about the time you guys grow up,
Speaker 1: there won't be one book left burning. The fireman used
Speaker 1: to put out fires. That's a classic lie. I want
Speaker 1: to know why we burn. We are not born equal.
Speaker 1: We must be made equal by the fire, and then
Speaker 1: we can be happy. Fahrenheit four for the temperature at
Speaker 1: which book paper catches fire and burns. The movie is
Speaker 1: based on the dystopian novel by Ray Bradberry, depicting a
Speaker 1: society where books are outlawed and fireman burn every book
Speaker 1: they find. Mind, it may not be as severe as burning,
Speaker 1: but there's been a dramatic escalation in the banning of books,
Speaker 1: and it seems to reflect culture war issues. Book challenges
Speaker 1: doubled from one According to the American Library Association, the
Speaker 1: majority of banned books focus on sexual orientation, gender identity, race,
Speaker 1: and racism. One Texas school district is getting ready for
Speaker 1: the start of school by removing forty one books from
Speaker 1: school library shelves, including gender queer by Maya Kobab, one
Speaker 1: of the most challenged books of last year. My guest
Speaker 1: is Deborah calwell Stone, director of the American Library Association's
Speaker 1: Office for Intellectual Freedom. Why do you think book bands
Speaker 1: are on the rise? I think because a number of
Speaker 1: events that have come together. One is the apparent success
Speaker 1: of Glenn young Can in his gubernatorial campaign, leveraging a
Speaker 1: parents complaint about a school book in Virginia to apparently
Speaker 1: draw voters and win that election. But I also think
Speaker 1: that there is an organized effort to attack education more broadly,
Speaker 1: and that books have become part of that campaign. We're
Speaker 1: seeing groups that call themselves parents rights groups, Moms for Liberty,
Speaker 1: No Left Turn and Education Parents Defending Education, activate local
Speaker 1: members local chapters to attend school board meetings, library board
Speaker 1: meetings and demand the removal of books and being very successful.
Speaker 1: The reasons for challenging books change over the years. Between
Speaker 1: two thousand and two thousand nine, the Harry Potter series
Speaker 1: was frequently challenged because of allegedly promoting witchcraft and wizardry.
Speaker 1: What do the challenges now mainly focus on. What we've
Speaker 1: observed since is the majority of books challenged in schools
Speaker 1: and libraries that when someone demands that they be removed
Speaker 1: from the library shelf are books centering the lives and
Speaker 1: experiences of lgbt q i A persons, And this includes
Speaker 1: things like picture books that simply depict a family headed
Speaker 1: by a same sex couple, ranging two young adult materials
Speaker 1: dealing with coming of age stories, romance, or nonfiction books
Speaker 1: dealing with sex education. The other trend that we're observing,
Speaker 1: and this is tied to the current campaign around critical
Speaker 1: race theory, or the claim that critical race theory is
Speaker 1: being taught in K through twelve schools, is a real
Speaker 1: effort to remove books reflecting the experience of African Americans.
Speaker 1: Are reflecting a perspective on history by African Americans who
Speaker 1: challenge some of the traditional narratives about racism and US
Speaker 1: history and their experience of slavery. And so what we're
Speaker 1: seeing is a focus on removing books that challenge the
Speaker 1: traditional narratives that elevates the lives and the voices of
Speaker 1: persons who have been traditionally excluded from society. But now
Speaker 1: I've found a voice. I think we've reached a kind
Speaker 1: of consensus here in the United States. Books written for
Speaker 1: adults and intended for adult audiences rarely see challenges. It
Speaker 1: never really becomes an issue. The real dispute is about
Speaker 1: books that are available to young people, and there has
Speaker 1: been a successful effort by a number of groups who
Speaker 1: style themselves parents rights groups to make this an issue
Speaker 1: about challenging their authority to raise their children, when in
Speaker 1: fact the end results has been to eliminate books that
Speaker 1: speak to the experiences of others in society who do
Speaker 1: not share their moral or political views. Looking at the states,
Speaker 1: Texas had the most bands, followed by Pennsylvania, Florida, and Oklahoma.
Speaker 1: Does book banning happen on both sides of the political
Speaker 1: spectrum because we mostly hear about it on what i'd
Speaker 1: call the conservative side. Certainly, book challenges do come from
Speaker 1: persons from all parts of the political spectrum, and we've
Speaker 1: seen challenges to books that use racial epithets from individuals
Speaker 1: and parents who believe that no young person should be
Speaker 1: exposed to things like the N word. And so I
Speaker 1: know that there's been a few school districts that have
Speaker 1: at least eliminated from the curriculum books like Cuckleberry Fin
Speaker 1: and even to Kill a Mockingbird, or they've moved those
Speaker 1: books up to the high school level, and they're teaching
Speaker 1: them at the high school level rather than the middle
Speaker 1: school levels. And there have been efforts to remove books
Speaker 1: that deal with gun violence. So you're absolutely correct that
Speaker 1: challenges can come from all parts of the political spectrum.
Speaker 1: But what we're seeing right now is really this coordinated
Speaker 1: efforts by a number of conservative advocacy organizations to target
Speaker 1: the kinds of narratives that challenge their authority that suggests
Speaker 1: that there's a place for individuals who are not like
Speaker 1: them in society, essentially silencing the voices of gay, queer,
Speaker 1: transgender people African Americans who offer more honest perspective on
Speaker 1: their experiences of racism here in American society. The only
Speaker 1: school library case to have been decided by the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court was forty years ago Island Tree School District. Fepiko
Speaker 1: tell us about that case. That was a plurality decision
Speaker 1: where it was determined that the first school board had
Speaker 1: to operate in a way that was consistent with the
Speaker 1: First Amendment and that indeed, students do have First Amendment
Speaker 1: rights to access books that are provided to them for
Speaker 1: voluntary reading in the school library, and that the school
Speaker 1: board could not remove books from the school library simply
Speaker 1: because they didn't like the ideas, opinions, viewpoint expressed in
Speaker 1: those books, And the result was guidance that said that,
Speaker 1: in fact, there is a First Amendment right to read
Speaker 1: and access ideas in a public library and a public
Speaker 1: school library, and that removing books because of their content
Speaker 1: or viewpoint could very well violate the First Amendment rights
Speaker 1: of the users who were supposed to be able to
Speaker 1: read them. And so we've seen a number of lower
Speaker 1: court decisions drawing on that authority that, for example, found
Speaker 1: that putting Harry Potter on a restricted shelf and requiring
Speaker 1: written parental permission to Accessory Potter in the school library
Speaker 1: did indeed violate the First Amendment rights the students who
Speaker 1: are entitled to use the books in that library and
Speaker 1: the public library. Realm District courts determined that when a
Speaker 1: city council authorized on ordinance that allowed any three hundred
Speaker 1: people to demand that a book be removed from the
Speaker 1: children's room to a restricted shelf in the adult area,
Speaker 1: and that was used to target two picture books dealing
Speaker 1: with families headed by same sex couples. Heather has two mommies,
Speaker 1: daddy's roommate um. They found that ordnance essentially violated the
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights both of the young people who were
Speaker 1: supposed to be able to browse and read those books,
Speaker 1: but also the parents who wanted their children to be
Speaker 1: able to find and read those books in the public library.
Speaker 1: So the court druck down the ordinance and ordered the
Speaker 1: books returned to the children's browsing collection. So there's been
Speaker 1: this defense of the ability of individuals to make their
Speaker 1: own choices about the reading and the ability of libraries
Speaker 1: to provide a variety of information needs across the range
Speaker 1: of beliefs and politics. On August fifth, a judge rejected
Speaker 1: Missouri students bid for a preliminary injunction and suit over
Speaker 1: school library book removals. His opinion question their reliance on
Speaker 1: the plurality opinion in the Island Trees case. Do you
Speaker 1: fear a time when Island Trees will no longer be
Speaker 1: controlling law because it was just a plurality opinion? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I would argue that subsequent cases and other
Speaker 1: decisions drought the federal court system have upheld the idea
Speaker 1: that students don't shed the First Amendment right when they
Speaker 1: enter the schoolhouse gate, to quote another famous case, the
Speaker 1: Tinker decision. But also, ultimately, I would have faith that
Speaker 1: courts would recognize that broad censorship of ideas in public
Speaker 1: school systems that are supposed to be serving the entire community,
Speaker 1: based on particular parents or particular advocacy groups objection to
Speaker 1: those ideas is the kind of government censorship we don't
Speaker 1: want our schools engaging in. How would you describe the
Speaker 1: criteria for banning a book? Is it based mainly on obscenity.
Speaker 1: It's a framing that we're hearing from these advocacy groups
Speaker 1: that any book touching on topics dealing with gender identity,
Speaker 1: sexual orientation, that provide information about changing bodies, human reproduction,
Speaker 1: sexuality are inherently obscene for minors, which of course is
Speaker 1: an objection based on particular moral or religious beliefs, and
Speaker 1: that really should have no place in the decision making
Speaker 1: about what books are available to young people in schools.
Speaker 1: And certainly obscenity is the bottom line as far as
Speaker 1: determining what is not protected by the First Amendment in
Speaker 1: those terms, But the Court has made it very clear
Speaker 1: that that's a very narrow category of materials that has
Speaker 1: no serious value, no educational value. You know, when library professionals,
Speaker 1: for an educational professionals select books for school students, they're
Speaker 1: selecting them because they do have an educational value, and
Speaker 1: particularly for voluntary reading in the school library. These books
Speaker 1: may serve the needs of a particular subset of students
Speaker 1: and they're not required reading. So the streisand effect is
Speaker 1: something that does occur when a book is challenged or banned,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't happen to every book. And ultimately, we
Speaker 1: have to think about those students, those members of the
Speaker 1: community who don't have access to credits, who don't have
Speaker 1: regular access to the internet, who can't travel to alternative bookstores.
Speaker 1: Public libraries exist to serve those very people, and school
Speaker 1: libraries serve students who have no other information resources. So
Speaker 1: when we ban a book from a school library, when
Speaker 1: we ban a book from a public library, we're denying
Speaker 1: those who have less in society the ability to gain
Speaker 1: the same access to information and ideas that are enjoyed
Speaker 1: by those with better income. In Virginia, there's a case
Speaker 1: where a former state congressman is trying to use this
Speaker 1: o Virginia law to ban the sale of books to miners.
Speaker 1: Is this another step because they're attempting to tell places
Speaker 1: like Barnes and Nobles what they can or can't sell.
Speaker 1: That's the core here. Um. We have individuals trying to
Speaker 1: tell us what to think about, what to read about,
Speaker 1: to recruit elected officials and the governments in their campaign
Speaker 1: to limit what we can read, what we can think about,
Speaker 1: even how we can live our own lives, and the
Speaker 1: government should not be engaged in that. That's what the
Speaker 1: First Amendment is for, this effort to reframe the conversation
Speaker 1: around gender identity and sexual orientation to somehow define it
Speaker 1: as inappropriate for any minor even the oldest of miners
Speaker 1: to consider and think about, when in fact, we know
Speaker 1: that we have many young people um who are parts
Speaker 1: of families who have gay or transgender members, are who
Speaker 1: are grappling with these issues themselves, or have friends who
Speaker 1: are grappling with these issues themselves. Is something that the
Speaker 1: government simply should not be engaged in. The First Amendment
Speaker 1: has promised us the freedom to believe as we wish,
Speaker 1: to think what we wish to read, what we want
Speaker 1: to speak as we wish um, in full freedom of
Speaker 1: conscience and what we have here is a campaign to
Speaker 1: take those rights away, um, and particularly in regards to
Speaker 1: the concepts dealing, you know, with the lives and identities
Speaker 1: of those who have been traditionally marginalized in our society,
Speaker 1: to limit our consideration to something that was probably acceptable
Speaker 1: in nineteen fifty two but no longer reflects the reality
Speaker 1: of the society we live in or the people who
Speaker 1: live in it. It's the antithesis of democracy to tell
Speaker 1: us what to think and read about, and to argue
Speaker 1: that our public schools and that our public with libraries
Speaker 1: should only reflect the views of a vocal minority. Really,
Speaker 1: um got the very meaning of the First Amendment and
Speaker 1: its promise of our freedom to read and believe as
Speaker 1: we wish. I remember when Senator Ted Cruz read from
Speaker 1: a book asking now Justice Katangi Brown Jackson about racist babies.
Speaker 1: The sales of that book went up. Is that what
Speaker 1: usually happens when there are attempts to ban books. Yes,
Speaker 1: we do observe that frequently when a book is challenged
Speaker 1: or banned, there is increased curiosity. People want to find
Speaker 1: out what's so salacious, what's so wrong with the book,
Speaker 1: And so sales do go Up One author Andie Thomas,
Speaker 1: who wrote a book for young adults called They Hate
Speaker 1: You Give. She's actually stated on social media that she
Speaker 1: has come to appreciate book bands because it means but
Speaker 1: she sells more books. So the strikes and effect is
Speaker 1: something that does occur when a book is challenged or banned,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't happen to every book. And ultimately, we
Speaker 1: have to think about those students, those members of the
Speaker 1: community who don't have access to credits, who don't have
Speaker 1: regular access to the Internet, who can't travel to alternative bookstores.
Speaker 1: Public libraries exist to serve those very people, and school
Speaker 1: libraries serve students who have no other information resources. So
Speaker 1: when we ban a book from a school library, when
Speaker 1: we ban a book from a public library, we're denying
Speaker 1: those who have less in society the ability to gain
Speaker 1: the same access to information and ideas that are enjoyed
Speaker 1: by those with better income. Thanks Debora, that's Deborah calwell Stone,
Speaker 1: director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom,
Speaker 1: the former head of the JP Morgan Chase precious metals
Speaker 1: business and It's Up Gold Trader were convicted in Chicago
Speaker 1: on charges of fraud spoofing and market manipulation and face
Speaker 1: decades in prison. It's a victory for the government and
Speaker 1: its long crackdown on spoofing in the precious metals market,
Speaker 1: even though a third defendant, a salesman, was acquitted. Joining
Speaker 1: me is James Park, a professor at u c l
Speaker 1: A Law School. His latest book is called The Valuation Treadmill,
Speaker 1: How securities Fraud Threatens the integrity of public companies. Two
Speaker 1: of the defendants were convicted, including the man who was
Speaker 1: once the most powerful figure in the gold market, but
Speaker 1: one was acquitted. So is this a victory for federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors in their crackdown. It is a victory in in
Speaker 1: my view. The person who was acquitted was not directly
Speaker 1: involved in the trade, and so he was a salesperson,
Speaker 1: so he may have had a stronger defense. And so
Speaker 1: I think the two convictions, though, are very significant, and
Speaker 1: you know, they send a signal not just with respect
Speaker 1: to gold market, but also other markets. And it culminates
Speaker 1: an extensive effort to crack down on this sort of
Speaker 1: spoofing and manipulative market activity. And it also shows that
Speaker 1: prosecutors can bring these cases before a jury. They'll understand
Speaker 1: it and they're willing to convict. In some cases, the
Speaker 1: jury was out for eight hours. That seems like a
Speaker 1: lot for this kind of case, with the amount of
Speaker 1: evidence that the prosecution put in. It may be it
Speaker 1: really depends on the context. And you know, it is,
Speaker 1: you know, a case that involves a lot of different transactions,
Speaker 1: a lot of different different trading transactions, and you know,
Speaker 1: the jury may have been trying to make sure it
Speaker 1: understood the details of what was being alleged. They certainly
Speaker 1: were also pass with deciding the fate of three different individuals,
Speaker 1: and so I would guess that a significant portion of
Speaker 1: that time might have been spent on um the acquitted
Speaker 1: individuals case, trying to understand what his role was in
Speaker 1: the transactions and whether or not be potentially guilty. So
Speaker 1: the government tried racketeering charges here, which are normally used
Speaker 1: in mob cases or gang cases. Prosecutors alleged the precious
Speaker 1: metals business at JP Morgan was run as a criminal enterprise,
Speaker 1: but it didn't work. The jury didn't buy that. They
Speaker 1: acquitted all three on racketeering. It's interesting, you know, we
Speaker 1: think of rico and racketeering as being um the sort
Speaker 1: of charges you level against the mafia for very serious
Speaker 1: types of crimes. Having said that the statue does include fraud,
Speaker 1: and fraud can include spoofing and other manipulative activities. But
Speaker 1: I think what they were trying to say is that
Speaker 1: they believed that the evidence only supported that the spoof
Speaker 1: thing was really the responsibility of the individuals involved in
Speaker 1: those activities as as opposed to the desk as a whole.
Speaker 1: That you couldn't say that the desk was acting in
Speaker 1: a coordinated manner to engage in criminal activity, and that
Speaker 1: some of this activity may not have been completely obvious
Speaker 1: to everyone on the desk, that some members of the
Speaker 1: desk may not have understood that this was a systemic,
Speaker 1: repeated practice that was going on over many years. And
Speaker 1: if that's the case, then you can only really blame
Speaker 1: the individuals who executed the spoofing trades as opposed to
Speaker 1: the desk as an enterprise. So I think that's a
Speaker 1: reasonable conclusion. And at the same time, you can see
Speaker 1: why the government may have felt it was appropriate to
Speaker 1: advanced the theory like this. You know, you're going after
Speaker 1: the head of the death, not a low level employee,
Speaker 1: and so if you think that the head of the
Speaker 1: desk is involved in this activity, then surely you know
Speaker 1: there's an argument that the desk as a whole was involved,
Speaker 1: as the head of the death was basically engineering this scheme.
Speaker 1: The government's investigated this like a mob case. Once they
Speaker 1: got the data, they started to look for co operators
Speaker 1: on lower levels and flip them. They arrested one of
Speaker 1: the mid level traders at an airport in Fort Lauderdale
Speaker 1: returning from his honeymoon. Is that like a sort of
Speaker 1: a scare tactic. Definitely, And it's really extraordinary measures that
Speaker 1: they took in this signals how serious they are taking
Speaker 1: these manipulative activities. I think it also reflects the difficulty
Speaker 1: of establishing manipulation and spoofing. They can always argue that,
Speaker 1: you know, these are trades that were made for other reasons,
Speaker 1: They were not men to manipulate the marketplace. And the
Speaker 1: only way you can really establish manipulative intent is by
Speaker 1: getting testimony of other individuals who may know and have
Speaker 1: evidence about that intent. And so it was very important
Speaker 1: for the government to bring a criminal case that they
Speaker 1: have this sort of specific evidence, and the only way
Speaker 1: you can get that is by getting other employees to
Speaker 1: flip and to testify, and so they took very aggressive
Speaker 1: tactics in order to achieve that result. Racketeering charges are
Speaker 1: also part of the government's case against Bill Wang, whose
Speaker 1: Articos Capital management collapsed last year and cost banks billions
Speaker 1: of dollars? Is this case instructive for the government's case there?
Speaker 1: It certainly indicates that it may be difficult for the
Speaker 1: government to win racketeering charges. But every jury is different,
Speaker 1: and the fact that the government laws on racketeering in
Speaker 1: this case does not necessarily mean that they will lose
Speaker 1: in another case. And so you will have to look
Speaker 1: at each organization on its own facts and look at
Speaker 1: the very particular way the organization was run. You know,
Speaker 1: you could argue with sort of a family fund that
Speaker 1: maybe the structure of the organization was such so that
Speaker 1: you might think of it as more like a unified
Speaker 1: enterprise that a trading desk. Now, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: you could say, well, it's it's just the same people
Speaker 1: may have different levels of knowledge of what is potentially
Speaker 1: illegal activity. So it really is going to depend on
Speaker 1: the facts. No, Back and Smith will be sentenced next year.
Speaker 1: They each face decades in prison, though probably the sentence
Speaker 1: will be far less. I think it will be far
Speaker 1: less than decades. I think I've seen some other convictions
Speaker 1: of sentences of around a year um. I would suspect
Speaker 1: maybe it's a bit more in that, but it's hard
Speaker 1: to say how the judge is going to rule, and
Speaker 1: they're the judge is going to look at the severity
Speaker 1: of the conduct and all the circumstances in crafting a sentence,
Speaker 1: because in these white collar cases you have defendants who
Speaker 1: don't usually have you know, any records, any criminal records,
Speaker 1: so that's always one thing in their favor. That's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: They may not have criminal records. And you know, the
Speaker 1: other argument I would make if I was on the
Speaker 1: defensive side, is that, you know, you look, who are
Speaker 1: the victims of the spoofing? And you know, my understanding
Speaker 1: is that a lot of the investors who lost money
Speaker 1: on the other side of these trades were other sophisticated investors,
Speaker 1: high frequency trading funds, and so you might argue, well,
Speaker 1: there were losses, but these were losses that more um
Speaker 1: born by barely sophisticated wealthy parties, and so could that
Speaker 1: mitigate the argument for a strong sentence that could be
Speaker 1: an argument that the Defense Council will make, is there
Speaker 1: still spoofing in the markets? I would guess that there is,
Speaker 1: you know. One of the problems is defining spoofing can
Speaker 1: be difficult, and there's a lot of activity that may
Speaker 1: go up to the brink of spoofing but not actually
Speaker 1: be spoofing. It really requires placing orders in a market
Speaker 1: with the intent to cancel them, and you're only placing
Speaker 1: the order to manipulate the market price in your favor
Speaker 1: for other transaction, And so what exactly is your intent?
Speaker 1: I'm sure that there are other transactions that could potentially
Speaker 1: fit that definition, but may go right up to the edge,
Speaker 1: some may go over the edge. Uh, And so you know,
Speaker 1: with this conviction though, that's a strong signal that you
Speaker 1: should not engage in this activity. And I would imagine
Speaker 1: it's going to have a to turn effect and reduced
Speaker 1: spoofing in many different markets. Did electronic trading make it
Speaker 1: easier to spoof? The speed of the trans actions that
Speaker 1: is enabled by the electronic trading can make it easier
Speaker 1: to place and cancel orders more quickly. I think that certainly,
Speaker 1: you know, I think a factor in you know, and
Speaker 1: does make it easier I think to sort of put
Speaker 1: in a lot of orders and cancel them very quickly.
Speaker 1: If you are, you know, trying to phone in orders,
Speaker 1: it may be harder to you know, make a subsequent
Speaker 1: phone called the cancel in order, Whereas if you have
Speaker 1: just the ability to cancel it with a click of
Speaker 1: a mouse, then you know, I think that makes it
Speaker 1: easier for somebody to put in a lot of orders
Speaker 1: and then quickly cancel them right away. This is the
Speaker 1: highlight of the federal government's crackdown on spoofing in precious metals.
Speaker 1: How did they do all? In all? I think they
Speaker 1: did very well. They initially got settlement from JP Morgan
Speaker 1: the institution, and they have also gotten a number of convictions,
Speaker 1: both through pre bargaining and also through jury trials. I
Speaker 1: think they're around ten individuals who have pleaded guilty or
Speaker 1: been convicted. And you know, this is not just a
Speaker 1: case where they found the misconduct and they penalized JP
Speaker 1: Morgan the corporation. There are a lot of commentators scholars
Speaker 1: who have criticized federal prosecutors for not bringing the individual cases,
Speaker 1: not bringing cases against individuals for corporate wrongdoing, and this
Speaker 1: is a nice example where the government did bring cases
Speaker 1: against individuals and worked very hard to do so, and
Speaker 1: they've been successful in holding individuals accountable for corporate wrongdoing.
Speaker 1: It's not just the case that JP Morgan is paying
Speaker 1: a nine million dollars fine and agreeing to various reforms.
Speaker 1: You are actually punishing the individuals who have committed wrongdoing,
Speaker 1: and that is more powerful deterrent then if you are
Speaker 1: just punishing a corporation that pays a large fine. So
Speaker 1: I think the government did very well in these cases.
Speaker 1: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission had multiple investigations, but they
Speaker 1: closed them after finding no evidence of wrongdoing. Did they
Speaker 1: miss something? It's hard to say. I think that, you know,
Speaker 1: part of the reality of these investigations is that these
Speaker 1: are hard cases to establish, and you have limited authority,
Speaker 1: you have limited resources, and those resources might be better
Speaker 1: off than on other types of wrongdoing. And so, you know,
Speaker 1: is it possible they missed something and missed some individuals. Yes, absolutely,
Speaker 1: But I think that you know, you have to prioritize
Speaker 1: and essentially winning convictions against the head trader of you know,
Speaker 1: the one one of the larger banks in this space.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a good use of your resources.
Speaker 1: They're going to appeal. Did any Pelt issues stand out
Speaker 1: to you. I didn't see anything that stood out to
Speaker 1: me as a legal issue. You know, they want the
Speaker 1: convictions on the more straightforward fraud and spoofing claims and
Speaker 1: manipulation claim as opposed to the racketeering charges, and that might,
Speaker 1: in effect, the fact that they lost the racketeering charges
Speaker 1: may make the possibility that they will survive appeal more
Speaker 1: likely because if they had also want conviction on racketeering,
Speaker 1: then there could be some legal issues as to whether
Speaker 1: this is really racketeering. But you know, because the convictions
Speaker 1: were on more straightforward charges, it might be that the
Speaker 1: government's case on appeal will be stronger. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for coming on the show, Jim. That's Professor James Park
Speaker 1: of u c l A Law School. His latest book
Speaker 1: is The Valuation Treadmill, How securities fraud threatens the integrity
Speaker 1: of public companies. And that's it for this edition of
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
Speaker 1: latest legal news Honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com. Slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune
Speaker 1: in to The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg