Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Justice Brett Kavanaugh is the Supreme Court's lightning rod, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that he's at the center of the court
Speaker 1: in the majority more than any other Justice. Protesters demonstrate
Speaker 1: at his home regularly and recently converged outside of Washington restaurant,
Speaker 1: forcing him to leave by the back door, and of
Speaker 1: course he's mocked by late night comedians who won't get
Speaker 1: over that rant on his love of beer at his
Speaker 1: confirmation hearings. Stephen Colbert seems to make the most of it. Yes,
Speaker 1: we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We
Speaker 1: drank beer. Do you drink beer? Like beer? Still like beer?
Speaker 1: Drank beer? Then reach for a cold bottle of Kavanaugh Cava.
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh Beer is full body for great drink ability and
Speaker 1: Supreme Judge ability, and a recent more Kent University Law
Speaker 1: School poll seems to confirm the obvious. Kavanaugh had by
Speaker 1: far the Court's worst net favorability rating of negative eleven
Speaker 1: percentage points. The only other Johnstice with a negative rating
Speaker 1: was Amy Coney Barrett at negative two. My guest is
Speaker 1: Barbara Perry, a presidential and Supreme Court scholar at the
Speaker 1: University of Virginia's Miller Center, Barbara From all the protests
Speaker 1: against Kavanaugh, you'd never know that he was at the
Speaker 1: center of the court. Well, I suppose we should begin
Speaker 1: by saying that the center has shifted so that even
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts now seems much more moderate and much
Speaker 1: more centrist relatively speaking, than those like Alito and the
Speaker 1: three Trump nominees on the far far right. But it
Speaker 1: is the case, by whatever measure we're now using, even
Speaker 1: if the center has shifted, at least Brett Kavanaugh is
Speaker 1: closer to that than he is to the far right.
Speaker 1: He's also less confrontational during oral arguments than some of
Speaker 1: the other justices like Samuel Alito. Sometimes you think from
Speaker 1: what he says, he's going to vote with the liberals.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's deliberate? I think that is probably
Speaker 1: his personality, and that the aberration was his anger at
Speaker 1: his own confirmation hearings four years ago. And we have
Speaker 1: information that Trump talked to him and said go low
Speaker 1: and go angry, and so that that's probably not his
Speaker 1: normal approach to his public life, and that he did
Speaker 1: that in order to get through and to please Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and to please the Trump is in the Senate
Speaker 1: and on the Judiciary Committee. So I suspect that while
Speaker 1: he's very, very conservative, it certainly has a conservative background.
Speaker 1: I suspect that his personality is much more moderate than
Speaker 1: he displayed in public in his confirmation hearing, so that
Speaker 1: the true personality in persona Brett Kavanaugh is probably what
Speaker 1: you see in oral arguments and to some extent in
Speaker 1: his opinion. I mean, he's mocked more than the other
Speaker 1: justices who are far more conservative than he is. How
Speaker 1: much of that is duty think to his confirmation hearings,
Speaker 1: As you said, he was angry, he was confrontational, and
Speaker 1: he had some of those frat boy comments. Yes, he
Speaker 1: had not only the unfortunate descriptions of his friend, but
Speaker 1: their unfortunate nicknames. And then what will carry him to
Speaker 1: his grave probably is I like beer all said not
Speaker 1: only with anger, because Claire's Thomas was angry because of
Speaker 1: the Anita Hill accusations at his nomination hearing, but in
Speaker 1: terms of his facial expressions, he had a rather poker
Speaker 1: face but angry voice, whereas Brett Kavanaugh had not only
Speaker 1: anger in his voice, but his scrunched up face, and
Speaker 1: then even when he has his resting, alcoholic, resting, moderate face,
Speaker 1: it is an easily caricatured face. So some people just
Speaker 1: have facial characteristic and it's Richard Nixon and his beady
Speaker 1: dark eyes and his d nose and his dark eyebrows.
Speaker 1: Wreck Havanag just has a face that's easily caricatured by cartoonists,
Speaker 1: but also easily portrayed in a Stephen Colbert monologue or
Speaker 1: a Stephen Colbert cold opening cartoons. In a few cases,
Speaker 1: for example, in the jobs case the abortion case, his
Speaker 1: opinion included a section that said you could limit the
Speaker 1: sweep of the abortion decision and that you won't have
Speaker 1: states going after women who go to other states for abortion.
Speaker 1: So what's his point Is his point, as it was
Speaker 1: in the gun case, to sort of say, Hey, what
Speaker 1: we're doing is not that bad. You don't really have
Speaker 1: to worry about this. I think that he probably believes that,
Speaker 1: and he also may have more moderate clerks around him. So,
Speaker 1: for example, I think the language that Thomas had in
Speaker 1: his concurrence in Dabbs about going back to reconsider gay
Speaker 1: marriage and sexual privacy and contraception, I hear the voice
Speaker 1: of fairly extreme law clerks that Clarence Thomas typically hires.
Speaker 1: And for Brett Kavanaugh, if indeed he is a slightly
Speaker 1: more moderate conservative, he may well have slightly more moderately
Speaker 1: conservative clerks. And let's face it, they do right typically
Speaker 1: the first draft of the Justice's opinions. So here, I
Speaker 1: think Kavanaugh's agreement with the team and his chambers, but
Speaker 1: also it does in his mind, I'm sure, helped to
Speaker 1: separate him from what he must see as the extremism
Speaker 1: from his colleagues from the Trump era and Alito and Thomas.
Speaker 1: But still, I mean, even though he says that, and
Speaker 1: he writes that, he still goes along with the majority
Speaker 1: and gives them the fifth vote that they need or
Speaker 1: the sixth vote that they want. Well, yes, and so
Speaker 1: did the Chief Justice, because I think they all wanted
Speaker 1: to end Row. And then you also get to the
Speaker 1: issue of you know, fool me once, shame on you.
Speaker 1: Whatever it was it for George W. Bush had in
Speaker 1: trouble saying, but you know, if I'm fooled by I
Speaker 1: think it was Susan Collins said, oh, well, but Kevin
Speaker 1: all lied to me about upholding Row. Well, if you
Speaker 1: go back and listen to what those Conservatives were saying
Speaker 1: about Row. They were founding, first of all, the party
Speaker 1: line to get them confirmed, because they all said the
Speaker 1: same thing, and they had all been coached to say that,
Speaker 1: which was yes, it's precedent. Well, that's a truism. Row
Speaker 1: was precedent. Should they pay attention to precedent? Yes, that's
Speaker 1: one of the maxims of self restraint of the court.
Speaker 1: But they didn't just come straight out and say, I
Speaker 1: would never, under any circumstances overturn Row. So nevertheless, they
Speaker 1: led some people to believe, including Susan Collins, that they
Speaker 1: wouldn't vote to overturn Row. So if you believe that,
Speaker 1: then are you going to believe what the Chief Justice
Speaker 1: was saying in the oral arguments, which sounded like he
Speaker 1: wanted to uphold the Mississippi Statute on the fifteen week
Speaker 1: limitations on abortions and yet voted to overturn Row in effect.
Speaker 1: And are you going to believe kavin Off that he
Speaker 1: won't go back with the rest of the Conservatives and
Speaker 1: look at and overturned the sexual privacy cases, the contraceptive cases,
Speaker 1: and the marriage equality cases. I don't think for a
Speaker 1: moment that those are safe with these five men and
Speaker 1: one woman on the bench on the right. As you mentioned,
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas seems to still be holding a grudge for
Speaker 1: his confirmation thirty years ago. He told his law clerks
Speaker 1: two years after his confirmation, according to a article from
Speaker 1: The New York Times, that he intended to serve on
Speaker 1: the highest court of the land to make the lives
Speaker 1: of liberals miserable. So yes, but it seems like Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: is not taking that tact. He's not, and good for him,
Speaker 1: because I would have argued, as someone who has followed
Speaker 1: the court and studied the court for four decades now
Speaker 1: and served as a judicial fellow there in the midnight nineties,
Speaker 1: and as someone who appreciates what it takes to be
Speaker 1: a federal judge, and especially on the highest court in
Speaker 1: the land, I believe in something that's called judicial temperament.
Speaker 1: That is that a justice not only should be as
Speaker 1: neutral as he or she can be, but they should
Speaker 1: just have the personality and persona of someone with maturity
Speaker 1: and judicial temperament. And I would have made the argument
Speaker 1: that Brett Kevanaugh did not display proper judicial temperament while
Speaker 1: he was at that time a federal judge before the
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary Commode. So my view is that he, at
Speaker 1: least now after getting on the court, is trying to
Speaker 1: hold to judicial temperament, and as we said, that might
Speaker 1: be his normal persona. Anyway, maybe that's not so hard
Speaker 1: for him and so good for him that he's taking
Speaker 1: a different approach from the I will be angry till
Speaker 1: I die Clarence Thomas vision. And by the way, he
Speaker 1: was also an angry young man, and understandably so. He
Speaker 1: came from the Deep South where he was discriminated against.
Speaker 1: He studied for the priesthood. At one time he was
Speaker 1: in the Catholic seminary, and when he heard people saying
Speaker 1: nasty things about Martin Luther King upon King's assassination, he
Speaker 1: gave up and he left. He left the church at
Speaker 1: that point. He's now come back to the Catholic Church,
Speaker 1: but he's had a lot of anger in his life,
Speaker 1: and it all came tumbling out again because of the
Speaker 1: Anita Hill accusations. Whether they were true or not, it
Speaker 1: certainly riled him up, and he is riled to this day.
Speaker 1: And now being able to have his conservative positions become
Speaker 1: the law of the land he's also must be doing
Speaker 1: a happy dance. So Kavanaugh was a clerk of Justice
Speaker 1: Anthony Kennedy and took his place on the court. Do
Speaker 1: you think that over time Kavanaugh will move closer to
Speaker 1: where Justice Kennedy was or is he just too conservative?
Speaker 1: There's always hope, yes, and particularly since Kavanaugh has messaged
Speaker 1: through his opinions and through his demeanor on the bench,
Speaker 1: and he's not going out and being angry in public
Speaker 1: as Clarence Thomas has been, So I think there is
Speaker 1: hope there. And the other thing I would say as
Speaker 1: a political scientist is that political scientists, scholars who studied
Speaker 1: the court have found that across his history, of justices
Speaker 1: tend to depart from the ideology their appointing president hope
Speaker 1: they would represent on the court. And it typically those
Speaker 1: twenty centers go from being conservatives to liberals, or at
Speaker 1: least to maybe being a swing vote. So Justice Kennedy
Speaker 1: was an example of that. Justice O'Connor. Justice Blackman, interestingly enough,
Speaker 1: who wrote the majority in Rosy Wade, was put on
Speaker 1: the court as a conservative by Richard Nixon, but he
Speaker 1: became a liberal vote, a reliable liberal vote. So yes,
Speaker 1: there's always hope. But nevertheless, even if the three liberals
Speaker 1: got kavanag there's still only at four. And one of
Speaker 1: my favorite elements of being a judicial fellow is meeting
Speaker 1: with the then retired Justice Brennan, a leader of the
Speaker 1: Warrant Court in its liberal revolutions. But he would bring
Speaker 1: in his new clerks every year about this time, and
Speaker 1: he would say, what's the most important word at the court.
Speaker 1: And they were all super bright, and they say justice, liberty, freedom,
Speaker 1: and he'd say no, no, and they'd stop answering. He'd say,
Speaker 1: are you finished? They say yes. He'd hold up one
Speaker 1: hand with all five fingers that lay and he'd say five,
Speaker 1: that's the most important word here at the court. So
Speaker 1: he was a pragmatist. And right now, even if the
Speaker 1: Liberals got Brett Cavanaugh, they'd only or vote. What they
Speaker 1: have to hope is that on some of these instances,
Speaker 1: for example, when Chief does this Roberts voted twice to
Speaker 1: uphold the A c A UH so called Obamacare, maybe
Speaker 1: they could win him over for these cases that are
Speaker 1: hot button social issues that everybody cares about. We'll see
Speaker 1: what happens next term. Thanks so much, Barbara. That's Barbara Perry,
Speaker 1: a presidential and Supreme Court scholar at the University of
Speaker 1: Virginia's Miller Center. When the Manhattan US Attorney Damien Williams
Speaker 1: announced new insider trading charges against a former US Congressman,
Speaker 1: a former Goldman Sachs banker, and a one time FBI trainee,
Speaker 1: he issued a warning. When insider trading occurs, investors who
Speaker 1: played by the rules are left to conclude that the
Speaker 1: deck is stacked against them. The cases that we unsealed
Speaker 1: today demonstrate our commitment to fighting that perception, and it
Speaker 1: should send a strong message to anyone who was even
Speaker 1: thinking about committing insider trading. Cut it out because we're watching,
Speaker 1: and perhaps cut it out because many of these insider
Speaker 1: trading cases show that sometimes crime doesn't really pay. Joining
Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Bob van Voris. Bob tell
Speaker 1: us about Briget Goyle, who was one of the people indicted.
Speaker 1: Brigett Coyle was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and
Speaker 1: then moved to Apollo Global, where he was a principal.
Speaker 1: He was charged recently with insider trading. It's alleged that
Speaker 1: he uh and a friend made two thoul and dollars
Speaker 1: in a scheme where they traded on insider information about
Speaker 1: deals that Goal picked up while he was working in
Speaker 1: Coldman Sachs. He was only recently charged with this. His friend,
Speaker 1: a guy named x Shane ran John, former Barclay's trader,
Speaker 1: was sued by the SEC. Goyle please not guilty and
Speaker 1: Naran John is not charged criminally, but he is sued
Speaker 1: by the SEC. One of the interesting things about this
Speaker 1: case is, at least at this point, prosecutors have only
Speaker 1: alleged that Goyle made thousand dollars from the split of
Speaker 1: the money here, which is dwarfed by the amount that
Speaker 1: obviously that he stands to gain as a principal at
Speaker 1: Apollo and as a thirty seven year old in the
Speaker 1: middle of a very promising career. Otherwise, what kind of
Speaker 1: money are we talking about as a principal at Apollo. Well,
Speaker 1: he was looking at probably a million plus a year
Speaker 1: going forward. This was an estimate from a recruiter that
Speaker 1: I talked to over the years. Obviously, this is going
Speaker 1: to grow. His value is going to you know, if
Speaker 1: his career continues to be successful, He's going to make
Speaker 1: a lot of money. He's going to have a very
Speaker 1: high status. He is on leave from Apollo now. As
Speaker 1: I say, he's pleaded not guilty. He hasn't been convicted
Speaker 1: of anything at this point. But this is obviously, at
Speaker 1: the very best, a huge speed pump in his career.
Speaker 1: And if he's convicted, he faces the possibility of prison,
Speaker 1: the loss of his career, and you know all the
Speaker 1: things that go with that. His squash buddy's facing charges
Speaker 1: by the SEC, but wasn't charged criminally taped a conversation
Speaker 1: with him. So the supposition is that he is cooperating
Speaker 1: with prosecutors. That's right. As I say, there's no criminal
Speaker 1: charges against him at the moment, and he has been
Speaker 1: identified as somebody who is coopera rating with the investigators.
Speaker 1: He made as you said, he made a consensual recording
Speaker 1: for investigators with Goel according to prosecutors, in which Coil
Speaker 1: incriminated himself in the scheme. This often happens. We often
Speaker 1: see this in insider trading cases. According to the SEC,
Speaker 1: Coil and Duran John were friends going back all the
Speaker 1: way to grad school, were very close, lived in the
Speaker 1: same apartment building at one point. But then you find
Speaker 1: often when somebody gets jammed up with the possibility of
Speaker 1: criminal charges in prison, they'll flip on, you know, people
Speaker 1: that they were very close to to save themselves, and
Speaker 1: it may be that that's what's going on in this case.
Speaker 1: So the question is, these people are making huge salaries.
Speaker 1: For the most part, directors and investment banks can make
Speaker 1: more than a million dollars a year. They all seem
Speaker 1: to be making a lot of money, So why do
Speaker 1: they do this? Absolutely, and you look at a lot
Speaker 1: of these cases. There are more of these where you
Speaker 1: see people with just so much at risk, with great careers,
Speaker 1: making a lot of money, putting them at risk for
Speaker 1: kind of you know, low level kind of insider trading,
Speaker 1: and you have to ask yourself, you know, what are
Speaker 1: they thinking? And from talking to people, it seems the
Speaker 1: thing that they're thinking the most is I'm not going
Speaker 1: to get caught. This is free money. And that's basically.
Speaker 1: These are risk takers, uh. In their jobs, They're used
Speaker 1: to taking risk with a lot of money, and so
Speaker 1: they are potentially more comfortable with this kind of risk
Speaker 1: than the normal person might be. They're also confident that
Speaker 1: they can sort of manage that risk by you know,
Speaker 1: sort of taking steps to keep uh, the information and
Speaker 1: you know what they're up to, keeping that secret, keeping
Speaker 1: that outside of a view of their employers and potential
Speaker 1: regulators and prosecutors. The problem with that is these are
Speaker 1: not people who are career criminals, right, So obviously you know,
Speaker 1: this is maybe the first time out for a lot
Speaker 1: of these guys, and they screw up. There's also a
Speaker 1: lot of factors that they can't control, right. They passed
Speaker 1: tips to people who maybe then pass them on to
Speaker 1: third parties who are indiscreet, or who passed them on,
Speaker 1: or who makes the kind of trades that are gonna
Speaker 1: draw attention at scrutiny. So there are a lot of
Speaker 1: different ways that these things unraveled. Sometimes, disappointed spouts, you know,
Speaker 1: an angry ax will turn somebody in. Sometimes a person
Speaker 1: will get charged with a tax thing and they'll want
Speaker 1: to get out from under that, and they'll inform on
Speaker 1: somebody that they had done an insider trade with. So
Speaker 1: there are a lot of ways that these things can
Speaker 1: go wrong, and I think a lot of the time
Speaker 1: people aren't thinking that through. And do we know how
Speaker 1: Goile got caught. It appears that it was based on
Speaker 1: the information that was pro bided by his friend and
Speaker 1: by market surveillance, which the SEC and FINRA are doing
Speaker 1: much more of. They've developed market surveillance tools that kind
Speaker 1: of flag potentially problematic trade following a big transaction in
Speaker 1: the market, and they're identifying people that are sort of
Speaker 1: under you know, what used to be the level where
Speaker 1: they would be able to get caught. You don't have
Speaker 1: to make a huge trade, you don't have to necessarily
Speaker 1: be trading, you know, making really flashy options trades anymore.
Speaker 1: They are getting flagged at a much lower level, and
Speaker 1: maybe that they don't think that their trading is at
Speaker 1: a high enough level to be caught. Is there any
Speaker 1: indication that there's a lot more inside trading going on
Speaker 1: than is being caught and prosecuted. It's really hard to tell.
Speaker 1: We know certainly that there are trades out there that
Speaker 1: there's insider trading going on that doesn't get caught. If
Speaker 1: you're just sharing a tip at the golf course or
Speaker 1: at the club, and the person trades on it and
Speaker 1: doesn't make it hunt of money and doesn't tell anybody,
Speaker 1: it's going to be really hard for authorities to get
Speaker 1: at that. So there's certainly trading that goes on. How
Speaker 1: much there is It's hard to tell, right because the
Speaker 1: ones that we know about are the ones where people
Speaker 1: get caught and people get identified and sued or they
Speaker 1: get prosecuted, so notionally, just talking to people, there is
Speaker 1: an idea that there are trades like that out there,
Speaker 1: but it's really hard to quantify. The one thing that's
Speaker 1: kind of interesting about that is that this is not
Speaker 1: too long after pre Berrara, the former U S attorney
Speaker 1: in Manhattan, had a very big crackdown on insider training
Speaker 1: at hedge funds that involved people like rod Rod Rotten
Speaker 1: s a c capital that was very much in the news,
Speaker 1: and you would think that people would be dissuaded, but
Speaker 1: still we continue to see insider training. The new U
Speaker 1: S attorney for Manhattan is he trying to crack down
Speaker 1: on insider trading. It's not clear yet whether he is
Speaker 1: going to be bringing the same number of cases or
Speaker 1: whether the same investigatory resources have been put into this.
Speaker 1: Damien Williams is the new U S attorney in Manhattan,
Speaker 1: and most of these cases will have been initiated before
Speaker 1: he came on the job, So we'll see going forward
Speaker 1: if insider trading is a big priority for Williams or
Speaker 1: if he's just going to be charging the cases as
Speaker 1: they come up. I just want to go to a
Speaker 1: few older cases of people who have been prosecuted, and
Speaker 1: you know one that sticks out to me is Shaun
Speaker 1: Stewart because he tipped off his father and he ended
Speaker 1: up going to prison for it. That's right. That was
Speaker 1: a case in which Sean Stewart, uh he's the former
Speaker 1: Carella Weinberg Partners banker, and he was convicted of sharing
Speaker 1: a number of tips about healthcare mergers with his father.
Speaker 1: The father then apparently passed them along to a friend
Speaker 1: of his who traded I think upwards of a million
Speaker 1: dollars in the tips and ended up getting caught and
Speaker 1: flipping on both Sean Stewart and his father. Sean Stewart
Speaker 1: went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to two
Speaker 1: years in prison. The only profit that the government was
Speaker 1: able to say that he made from this from tipping
Speaker 1: off his father was that when Sean got married, the
Speaker 1: father used ten thousand dollars the money that he got
Speaker 1: in his trades to pay for the photographer at the wedding.
Speaker 1: So you know, obviously the risk benefit there is just
Speaker 1: way out of line and Stewart's career is over. He
Speaker 1: is not making the money that he once made and
Speaker 1: is barred from the industry. Dollars a lot for a
Speaker 1: wedding photographer, I think absolutely so these are like small
Speaker 1: time gains made. But there are some people who make
Speaker 1: huge money on insider trading. Yeah, absolutely, um. There are
Speaker 1: examples of very, very big insider trading cases. The biggest
Speaker 1: individual case that anybody is aware of is a guy
Speaker 1: named Matthew Martoma, former s a C Capital Advisor portfolio manager.
Speaker 1: He was convicted of making two d and seventy six
Speaker 1: million dollars for the firm for SAC Capital trading on
Speaker 1: information about the development of an alzheimer drug. Rod Roger
Speaker 1: Rottenham of Galleon Group, in a very famous case, was
Speaker 1: convicted of a scheme that prosecutors said netted his hedge
Speaker 1: fund seventy two million dollars. And in a somewhat lesser
Speaker 1: known case, a Swiss trader named Mark domain to Be
Speaker 1: admitted that he made at least seventy million dollars from
Speaker 1: an international insider trading rank that traded on information stolen
Speaker 1: by bankers. And this was a multi continent insider trading
Speaker 1: rank and domain to be was able to cooperate and
Speaker 1: avoid the prison sentence. He spent some time in jail
Speaker 1: before his trial, but he's free now. Did you recently
Speaker 1: speak to RAJ rog Rottenham after his he came out
Speaker 1: of prison. I did. I went to Roger. Roger Rottenham
Speaker 1: is running a family office. He is not able to
Speaker 1: invest money for clients as a result of his felony
Speaker 1: convictions and his seven years in prison, but he's now
Speaker 1: investing his own money and he's got a small staff
Speaker 1: of people who are working with him. He's investing in healthcare,
Speaker 1: clean energy, and some other things, real estate investments, and
Speaker 1: you know, this is kind of his second act. But
Speaker 1: he is still trading and he's looking for, you know,
Speaker 1: a way to sort of get back in the in
Speaker 1: the game. He's also he's written a book in which
Speaker 1: he is very critical of pre Berarra and the surprise, surprise, surprise,
Speaker 1: the charges that were made against him. Of course, Roger
Speaker 1: rotten was convicted at trial. His conviction and sentence were
Speaker 1: upheld repeatedly by judges. So he did his time. Does
Speaker 1: he still claim that he's not guilty. Absolutely, He claims
Speaker 1: that it was a result of over zealous prosecution, that
Speaker 1: pressure was put the people who testified against him, and
Speaker 1: that he didn't do anything wrong and he shouldn't have
Speaker 1: gone to prison. Did he say anything about his prison's day.
Speaker 1: He did. He said that it wasn't as bad as
Speaker 1: people sometimes. I think he said that he was prepared
Speaker 1: in part by attending English boarding school when he was
Speaker 1: a cat. He's told me that there was one point
Speaker 1: at which he was threatened by another inmate. People tried
Speaker 1: to extort money from him because he is so famous
Speaker 1: and so wealthy. When he said, he stood up to
Speaker 1: this person and that was the end of that. I
Speaker 1: have never heard prison compared to an English boarding school,
Speaker 1: nor have I He did it several times, and it's
Speaker 1: hard to believe. But either prison isn't it that bad,
Speaker 1: or English boarding school is very bad. Absolutely So just
Speaker 1: finally you talked to um a lot Professor Donald Langborn.
Speaker 1: Does he think any of these people don't understand that
Speaker 1: what they're doing is wrong or they just don't think
Speaker 1: they'll get caught. Certainly if they don't think they'll get caught,
Speaker 1: But more it suggested that a lot of the times
Speaker 1: these people either they don't understand the law, or they
Speaker 1: are rationalizing that what they're doing is not really breaking
Speaker 1: the law. The law is that if you are trading
Speaker 1: on non public material information, you are potentially in violation
Speaker 1: of the law, or if you're giving tips to other people. Right,
Speaker 1: So apparently some people will sometimes think, well, this tip
Speaker 1: isn't so it's not really illegal. But that's not the standard.
Speaker 1: It just has to be something that is important to
Speaker 1: an investment decision, and if it's non public, you can
Speaker 1: be liable for insider trading and you can be suited
Speaker 1: by the SEC or go to prison. I love this quote.
Speaker 1: Coyle's lawyer told the judge that his client were shocked
Speaker 1: by his arrest, and the judge said, that's often the
Speaker 1: case with insider trading. Arrest, isn't it. That's how they
Speaker 1: that's how it goes. When the FBI shows up at
Speaker 1: your door at six I am. It can be extremely disconcerting.
Speaker 1: Thanks Bob. That's Legal reporter Bob van Vorus and that's
Speaker 1: it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: week night at ten BM Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow,
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg