1 00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:04,920 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:05,160 --> 00:00:08,680 Speaker 1: Senator Richard Burr has called for an ethics investigation into 3 00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:12,240 Speaker 1: himself and three other senators who sold off stock after 4 00:00:12,280 --> 00:00:16,919 Speaker 1: receiving classified briefings on the coronavirus threat. The sales came 5 00:00:17,000 --> 00:00:21,680 Speaker 1: before stocks collapsed as the virus outbreak became a global pandemic. 6 00:00:22,120 --> 00:00:25,000 Speaker 1: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mints apart in 7 00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:29,800 Speaker 1: McCarter and English. Is this a question of insider trading? 8 00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:33,880 Speaker 1: Is it just ethics violations? What is it if it's 9 00:00:33,920 --> 00:00:38,200 Speaker 1: not from a company, Well, it's really all the above, June. Really, 10 00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:42,240 Speaker 1: what regulators will be looking at here is whether or 11 00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:45,640 Speaker 1: not there's potential insider trading, or whether there's a potential 12 00:00:45,720 --> 00:00:49,640 Speaker 1: violation of something called the Stock Act, of which is 13 00:00:49,720 --> 00:00:53,360 Speaker 1: really just like insider trading, And what it really focuses 14 00:00:53,400 --> 00:00:56,160 Speaker 1: on is whether or not individual soul stock while in 15 00:00:56,240 --> 00:01:00,120 Speaker 1: possession of information that was not yet publicly available, and 16 00:01:00,120 --> 00:01:03,360 Speaker 1: whether or not that information was material to the pricing 17 00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:05,880 Speaker 1: of the stock, the same exact standard that is used 18 00:01:05,880 --> 00:01:09,720 Speaker 1: in all insider trading cases. In a tweet on Friday, 19 00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:13,840 Speaker 1: Senator Burr denied any wrongdoing, saying that he relied solely 20 00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:19,200 Speaker 1: on public news reports to inform his decisions. How will 21 00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:23,959 Speaker 1: investigators decide whether that's true. Well, it's really very much 22 00:01:24,080 --> 00:01:26,919 Speaker 1: the challenge that is faced in all insider trading cases, 23 00:01:26,959 --> 00:01:28,679 Speaker 1: and that is trying to get inside the head of 24 00:01:28,720 --> 00:01:32,640 Speaker 1: the trader to determine what caused the individual to make 25 00:01:32,920 --> 00:01:35,920 Speaker 1: the trading decisions that were made. And of course, again 26 00:01:35,959 --> 00:01:39,120 Speaker 1: it has to be information that is non public and 27 00:01:39,120 --> 00:01:41,640 Speaker 1: it has to be material, which means it would have 28 00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:45,039 Speaker 1: had to have caused a significant change in the stock price. 29 00:01:45,319 --> 00:01:48,600 Speaker 1: So here in the in the situation of Senator Burr, 30 00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:51,600 Speaker 1: we really have a circumstance where he was apparently pretty 31 00:01:51,720 --> 00:01:55,080 Speaker 1: to quite a few briefings. Um many of those briefings 32 00:01:55,160 --> 00:01:59,400 Speaker 1: were information that was publicly available. But then there was 33 00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:03,080 Speaker 1: also a thing that occurred, apparently on February twelve, which 34 00:02:03,080 --> 00:02:07,040 Speaker 1: focused on the United States being ready for this potential epidemic, 35 00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:10,760 Speaker 1: but also touched on the possible economic fallout. And it 36 00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:14,880 Speaker 1: was the very next day, February thirteenth, that apparently Center 37 00:02:14,919 --> 00:02:17,960 Speaker 1: Burst sold off some thirty three different stock holdings worth 38 00:02:17,960 --> 00:02:21,480 Speaker 1: a collective UH six twenty eight thousand to one point 39 00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:25,639 Speaker 1: seven million dollars, which represented a significant share of his portfolio. 40 00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:30,760 Speaker 1: Another Senator under scrutiny is Georgia Republican Kelly Loffler. She's 41 00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:33,639 Speaker 1: sold off millions of dollars worth of stock beginning on 42 00:02:33,760 --> 00:02:37,400 Speaker 1: January That's the day the Health Committee she sits on 43 00:02:37,560 --> 00:02:41,000 Speaker 1: was briefed by US Public health officials. Um she would 44 00:02:41,040 --> 00:02:43,200 Speaker 1: have lost up to one and a half million dollars 45 00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:46,680 Speaker 1: if she held onto those stocks. I heard her say 46 00:02:46,720 --> 00:02:49,560 Speaker 1: that these are trades that she didn't know about, that 47 00:02:49,600 --> 00:02:54,600 Speaker 1: they're done automatically without her knowing about them until afterwards. Yeah. Well, 48 00:02:54,600 --> 00:02:58,040 Speaker 1: as when any insider stock deal, you have to show 49 00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:01,720 Speaker 1: that the person was the one who directed the trading. 50 00:03:02,040 --> 00:03:03,720 Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that they would have had to have 51 00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:06,920 Speaker 1: done it themselves. They certainly could have instructed their broker. 52 00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:09,240 Speaker 1: But if you have a circumstance, as some of the 53 00:03:09,320 --> 00:03:12,280 Speaker 1: Senators and some of the House members who did trade 54 00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:15,639 Speaker 1: have now stated publicly that these decisions were made without 55 00:03:15,680 --> 00:03:18,240 Speaker 1: their involved involvement, that they were either held in a 56 00:03:18,240 --> 00:03:21,640 Speaker 1: blind trust, or that they were investment advisors who were 57 00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:25,000 Speaker 1: making these decisions without their input, then that would be 58 00:03:25,240 --> 00:03:28,799 Speaker 1: a defense to any insider trading charges or a potential 59 00:03:28,880 --> 00:03:32,639 Speaker 1: violation of the Stock Act of what about not attending 60 00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:37,920 Speaker 1: that meeting. Senators Diane fine Stein, a Democrat from California, 61 00:03:38,160 --> 00:03:43,040 Speaker 1: and James Inhoff, a Republican from Oklahoma, also sold assets 62 00:03:43,080 --> 00:03:47,480 Speaker 1: after that January briefing, but they both denied even attending 63 00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:50,720 Speaker 1: the meeting, and fine Stein said her assets were held 64 00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:54,600 Speaker 1: in a blind trust. So if they didn't attend the 65 00:03:54,600 --> 00:03:59,960 Speaker 1: meeting but they still sold, does that have bearing. Absolutely, 66 00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:02,240 Speaker 1: It really doesn't so much depend on whether you tended 67 00:04:02,280 --> 00:04:04,960 Speaker 1: the meeting. It depends on whether you had the information. So, 68 00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:06,760 Speaker 1: for example, if you didn't attend the meeting, but one 69 00:04:06,760 --> 00:04:09,320 Speaker 1: of the other senators you did pass along the information 70 00:04:09,320 --> 00:04:12,320 Speaker 1: to you, and then you use that to trade on it, 71 00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:15,080 Speaker 1: it could potentially be a violation of either of those 72 00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:17,800 Speaker 1: two statutes and insider trading laws or the Stock Act 73 00:04:17,800 --> 00:04:20,440 Speaker 1: of twenty twelve. There's also the possibility that the SEC 74 00:04:20,560 --> 00:04:23,400 Speaker 1: could take a look at this from a civil enforcement standard, 75 00:04:23,440 --> 00:04:26,400 Speaker 1: and that would be a case where the genitive proof 76 00:04:26,440 --> 00:04:29,719 Speaker 1: would be lower than there would be in a criminal case. Basically, 77 00:04:29,839 --> 00:04:32,600 Speaker 1: regulators would have to convince a judge or a jury 78 00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:37,480 Speaker 1: that the accused public official recklessly and consciously uh indifferent 79 00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:41,080 Speaker 1: to their produciary duties took these steps, and they would 80 00:04:41,120 --> 00:04:43,719 Speaker 1: only have to prove that by a preponderance of evidence. 81 00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:47,599 Speaker 1: So not only are they potentially looking at criminal charges here, 82 00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:51,159 Speaker 1: that's a possibility, there's also SEC taking civil enforcement actions. 83 00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:55,040 Speaker 1: And then there's also the possibility of ethics investigations by 84 00:04:55,080 --> 00:04:57,360 Speaker 1: the Senate or by the House into some of these trades. 85 00:04:57,600 --> 00:04:59,880 Speaker 1: But again, they would have to look at the timing 86 00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:04,039 Speaker 1: of it, what information was available to the individual directing 87 00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:07,400 Speaker 1: the trade, and then they have to surmount that difficult 88 00:05:07,480 --> 00:05:11,160 Speaker 1: hurdle of proving that the material the information was material 89 00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:14,560 Speaker 1: and that the decision was made based upon non public information. 90 00:05:14,880 --> 00:05:17,000 Speaker 1: And in the case of sender Burn, for example, we 91 00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:20,320 Speaker 1: could see that he was privy to both public and 92 00:05:20,480 --> 00:05:24,000 Speaker 1: non public information, and proving that it was the non 93 00:05:24,040 --> 00:05:27,920 Speaker 1: public information that precipitated the trading decision is a difficult one. 94 00:05:27,960 --> 00:05:31,240 Speaker 1: But that's the same um high hurdle that's faced by 95 00:05:31,360 --> 00:05:34,440 Speaker 1: prosecutors in all insider trading cases. The same high hurdle 96 00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:37,239 Speaker 1: was faced by the SEC and all civil enforcement actions 97 00:05:37,279 --> 00:05:41,599 Speaker 1: in the ethics investigations. Is it a different standard, is 98 00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:44,880 Speaker 1: it a different kind of inquiry? But yeah, that that's 99 00:05:44,880 --> 00:05:50,000 Speaker 1: a completely different kind of investigation. It's done by Senate 100 00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:54,800 Speaker 1: or House members themselves, and uh history tells us that 101 00:05:55,000 --> 00:05:59,400 Speaker 1: rarely are sanctions imposed by those investigations, but that can 102 00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:03,680 Speaker 1: ultimately result in the Senate or the House voting to 103 00:06:03,760 --> 00:06:06,760 Speaker 1: remove a member if they believe there has been a violation. 104 00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:09,560 Speaker 1: So that is another option, And in fact, Senator Burr 105 00:06:09,600 --> 00:06:12,800 Speaker 1: has publicly called for an investigation by the Senate Ethics 106 00:06:12,839 --> 00:06:16,200 Speaker 1: Committee into these trades, an attempt to clear his name. Yeah, 107 00:06:16,240 --> 00:06:19,920 Speaker 1: there's no question that the investigations by House or Senate 108 00:06:19,960 --> 00:06:23,720 Speaker 1: committees is going to be a standard that is less 109 00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:26,159 Speaker 1: than what prosecutors would have to meet in order to 110 00:06:26,200 --> 00:06:29,440 Speaker 1: bring either civil or criminal charges. But you're really a 111 00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:31,880 Speaker 1: good point here, because what we're seeing in many ways 112 00:06:31,960 --> 00:06:35,840 Speaker 1: is a pattern that is similar to the financial crisis 113 00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:39,360 Speaker 1: of two thousand and eight, where we saw individuals in 114 00:06:39,560 --> 00:06:45,280 Speaker 1: corporate America being prosecuted by the SEC. Mainly where he 115 00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:49,280 Speaker 1: had instances of politically connected corporate insiders a top financial 116 00:06:49,279 --> 00:06:52,840 Speaker 1: institutions who had advanced knowledge of bailouts in the wake 117 00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:55,240 Speaker 1: of the two thousand and eight financial crisis, and who 118 00:06:55,320 --> 00:06:59,480 Speaker 1: used that information for stock trades anticipating the market reaction. 119 00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:01,359 Speaker 1: So I think where we're gonna see here is a 120 00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:04,760 Speaker 1: delay in enforcement. We're certainly not gonna see regulators moving 121 00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:07,080 Speaker 1: quickly on any of this, given the fact that they're 122 00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:09,160 Speaker 1: all working from home and there's quite a bit of 123 00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:12,200 Speaker 1: other things going on in the market that SEC officials 124 00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:14,080 Speaker 1: are gonna have to be looking at. But there are 125 00:07:14,080 --> 00:07:16,960 Speaker 1: going to be looking down the road at trades by 126 00:07:17,040 --> 00:07:19,920 Speaker 1: various people. This could be months, could be even years later, 127 00:07:20,240 --> 00:07:23,200 Speaker 1: because whenever you see this kind of market volatility, it 128 00:07:23,280 --> 00:07:26,440 Speaker 1: presents a heightened opportunity for insider trading, and we're going 129 00:07:26,480 --> 00:07:29,880 Speaker 1: to see regulators looking at the trading patterns of certain 130 00:07:29,880 --> 00:07:32,680 Speaker 1: individuals to see whether or not there's a possibility that 131 00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:36,280 Speaker 1: we're using inside information order to make those trading decisions. 132 00:07:36,640 --> 00:07:42,680 Speaker 1: So Bob, explain basically what insider trading is. Sure, the 133 00:07:42,720 --> 00:07:46,720 Speaker 1: body of insider trading law points to some key guidance 134 00:07:46,760 --> 00:07:50,080 Speaker 1: when you're looking at what is legal and what is illegal. 135 00:07:50,480 --> 00:07:53,679 Speaker 1: Basically it comes down to don't trade on non public 136 00:07:53,760 --> 00:07:57,560 Speaker 1: information about listed companies, don't tell someone else to trade 137 00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:00,560 Speaker 1: on it, and don't lie if authorities have questions for 138 00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:04,160 Speaker 1: you about your trades or investments. The problem and the 139 00:08:04,240 --> 00:08:08,120 Speaker 1: challenge for prosecutors always for insider trading cases is demonstrating 140 00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:10,720 Speaker 1: the cause and effect, which you can get kind of murky. 141 00:08:11,040 --> 00:08:13,840 Speaker 1: Insider trading cases are not easy to make, which is 142 00:08:13,880 --> 00:08:17,720 Speaker 1: why you don't see them frequently prosecuted, and they're often complicated. 143 00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:22,200 Speaker 1: Insider trading, remember, is only illegal when the information is material, 144 00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:25,720 Speaker 1: meaning that it would have caused a significant change in 145 00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:28,120 Speaker 1: the stock price. And it's also only illegal when the 146 00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:31,520 Speaker 1: information is known by the trader and not the public. 147 00:08:31,720 --> 00:08:34,640 Speaker 1: So it really requires prosecutors to get inside the head 148 00:08:34,640 --> 00:08:37,960 Speaker 1: of the trader, which they have to do circumstantially by 149 00:08:38,120 --> 00:08:42,440 Speaker 1: showing the pattern of trading prior to the incident, which 150 00:08:42,480 --> 00:08:45,520 Speaker 1: they believe is based on insider information, and showing that 151 00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:49,520 Speaker 1: based on the circumstantial evidence, the timing, the amount of trades, 152 00:08:49,800 --> 00:08:52,640 Speaker 1: all of that put together, it shows that the individuals 153 00:08:52,679 --> 00:08:55,600 Speaker 1: making the decision not based on public information and not 154 00:08:55,679 --> 00:08:59,520 Speaker 1: based on their past trading patterns, but arguably based on 155 00:08:59,640 --> 00:09:02,000 Speaker 1: infra nation that was not available to the public and 156 00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:05,320 Speaker 1: was ultimately the trayal on the stock price. So is 157 00:09:05,360 --> 00:09:09,720 Speaker 1: the fear here that corporate insiders could trade based on 158 00:09:09,800 --> 00:09:13,240 Speaker 1: advanced knowledge of let's say, government relief for airlines or 159 00:09:13,280 --> 00:09:17,960 Speaker 1: other companies before the measures are made public. Oh. Absolutely, 160 00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:22,120 Speaker 1: there's going to be unfortunately, lots of opportunities here due 161 00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:26,560 Speaker 1: to the enormous market volativity volatility that we're seeing and 162 00:09:26,720 --> 00:09:31,280 Speaker 1: the possibility of government bailouts and corporate insiders who may 163 00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:35,520 Speaker 1: have information about those bailouts before it's publicly known. Obviously, 164 00:09:35,559 --> 00:09:39,280 Speaker 1: we'll have the opportunity to potentially trade on that information 165 00:09:39,320 --> 00:09:41,640 Speaker 1: before the market reacts. That's the kind of thing that 166 00:09:41,720 --> 00:09:45,760 Speaker 1: regulators will be looking at, but it's probably information that 167 00:09:45,800 --> 00:09:48,440 Speaker 1: they'll be looking at in a delayed way down the road. 168 00:09:48,480 --> 00:09:50,400 Speaker 1: They're just not going to have the ability to look 169 00:09:50,400 --> 00:09:53,199 Speaker 1: at this kind of trading activity in real time. We're 170 00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:56,600 Speaker 1: going to see some delay months, maybe even years before 171 00:09:56,640 --> 00:09:59,400 Speaker 1: regulators can catch up on some of the trading that 172 00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:02,760 Speaker 1: may occur during this period of market volatility connected to 173 00:10:02,920 --> 00:10:06,040 Speaker 1: the coronavirus. Daniel Taylor, who is a professor at the 174 00:10:06,120 --> 00:10:11,280 Speaker 1: University of Pennsylvania's Business School, said that the pattern we 175 00:10:11,320 --> 00:10:15,160 Speaker 1: saw what the financial crisis appears to be repeating itself. 176 00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:17,640 Speaker 1: Can you explain a little bit about what happened then 177 00:10:17,840 --> 00:10:20,680 Speaker 1: compared to what's happening now, Sure, what we're talking about 178 00:10:20,760 --> 00:10:25,520 Speaker 1: here is the same potential government bailout system where we 179 00:10:25,600 --> 00:10:28,560 Speaker 1: saw in the financial crisis of two thousand and eight. 180 00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:33,040 Speaker 1: There are instances in which politically connected corporated ciders at 181 00:10:33,160 --> 00:10:37,120 Speaker 1: financial institutions who may have had advanced knowledge about these 182 00:10:37,200 --> 00:10:39,440 Speaker 1: bailouts and the wake of that two thousand and eight 183 00:10:39,520 --> 00:10:43,800 Speaker 1: financial crisis, use that information for stock trades anticipating the 184 00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:46,640 Speaker 1: market reaction. So, in other words, if they were prevy 185 00:10:46,679 --> 00:10:48,920 Speaker 1: new information that a bailout was coming, and they knew 186 00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:51,000 Speaker 1: that was going to cause a jump in the stock price, 187 00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:53,880 Speaker 1: which is at that point had been enormously depressed, they 188 00:10:53,920 --> 00:10:56,480 Speaker 1: could trade on that information. And given the fact that 189 00:10:56,520 --> 00:10:59,880 Speaker 1: we can expect to see a similar amount of government 190 00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:02,960 Speaker 1: allowed to different industries, which as the airline industry and others, 191 00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:07,480 Speaker 1: that information presents opportunities for those to trade on the information. 192 00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:11,359 Speaker 1: This heightened opportunity for insider trading is something that regulators 193 00:11:11,400 --> 00:11:14,520 Speaker 1: will no doubt be looking at, and those trading records 194 00:11:14,520 --> 00:11:17,280 Speaker 1: will be available to them after the fact to try 195 00:11:17,280 --> 00:11:19,360 Speaker 1: to figure out the timing of when those trades were 196 00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:21,520 Speaker 1: made versus the information that they have been available to 197 00:11:21,559 --> 00:11:24,640 Speaker 1: these corporate insiders, to try to piece together a case 198 00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:27,680 Speaker 1: for insider trading. But these cases, again are always difficult 199 00:11:27,720 --> 00:11:30,400 Speaker 1: to prove, so it remains to be seen whether we're 200 00:11:30,400 --> 00:11:32,960 Speaker 1: going to see a real spike in insider trading prosecutions 201 00:11:33,040 --> 00:11:37,079 Speaker 1: in the wake of some of these anticipated government bailouts. Bob, 202 00:11:37,120 --> 00:11:41,840 Speaker 1: if you remember, were any executives given jail time for 203 00:11:41,920 --> 00:11:46,120 Speaker 1: insider trading during the financial crisis or was it mainly 204 00:11:46,240 --> 00:11:50,079 Speaker 1: penalties that they had to pay. No, that's a great 205 00:11:50,120 --> 00:11:53,880 Speaker 1: example because even during the bailouts of two thousand eight, 206 00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:58,240 Speaker 1: we saw very few insider trading cases actually being brought 207 00:11:58,320 --> 00:12:03,880 Speaker 1: where people were criminally responsible. For example, Angelo Mozilo, who 208 00:12:03,960 --> 00:12:07,160 Speaker 1: was the co founder and CEO of Countrywide Financial. There 209 00:12:07,280 --> 00:12:10,440 Speaker 1: is a very high profile case in which this Morgage 210 00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:14,120 Speaker 1: company faced financial clap collapsed in two thousand and eight 211 00:12:14,160 --> 00:12:17,600 Speaker 1: before being purchased by Bank of America, and in that case, 212 00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:21,880 Speaker 1: Mr Brazilla paid a multimillion dollar penalty to the sec 213 00:12:22,160 --> 00:12:25,520 Speaker 1: but never admitted or denied any wrongdoing and there were 214 00:12:25,520 --> 00:12:28,439 Speaker 1: no criminal charges brought. As an example of how difficult 215 00:12:28,440 --> 00:12:30,720 Speaker 1: it is to bring these types of cases. Do you 216 00:12:30,800 --> 00:12:34,920 Speaker 1: think years before we'll see any of these cases. Yeah, 217 00:12:34,960 --> 00:12:37,720 Speaker 1: I think we're gonna have to wait to see how 218 00:12:37,760 --> 00:12:41,760 Speaker 1: this whole crisis plays out on the economy. There's going 219 00:12:41,800 --> 00:12:45,720 Speaker 1: to be instances where uh, there are drug approvals, there's 220 00:12:45,760 --> 00:12:49,120 Speaker 1: going to be Medicare coverage issues, there's going to be 221 00:12:49,240 --> 00:12:53,040 Speaker 1: government bailout issues. There's all kinds of information that is 222 00:12:53,080 --> 00:12:55,440 Speaker 1: going to have an impact on the market, uh and 223 00:12:55,520 --> 00:12:58,520 Speaker 1: will result in markets either moving up or down, and 224 00:12:58,600 --> 00:13:02,160 Speaker 1: that information present opportunities always for people to trade on 225 00:13:02,280 --> 00:13:05,520 Speaker 1: the information, but it will take the government years probably 226 00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:07,800 Speaker 1: rather than months, to unravel whether or not there was 227 00:13:07,840 --> 00:13:10,559 Speaker 1: anything done illegally in any of these trades. That's former 228 00:13:10,559 --> 00:13:16,800 Speaker 1: federal prosecutor Robert Ment's a partner mcarter and English. Thanks 229 00:13:16,840 --> 00:13:20,160 Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe 230 00:13:20,160 --> 00:13:23,400 Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and 231 00:13:23,480 --> 00:13:27,960 Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Rosso. This 232 00:13:28,280 --> 00:13:31,640 Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. Yeah.