WEBVTT - Senators' Stock Sales Raise Insider Trading Concerns

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:04.920
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:05.160 --> 0:00:08.680
<v Speaker 1>Senator Richard Burr has called for an ethics investigation into

0:00:08.720 --> 0:00:12.240
<v Speaker 1>himself and three other senators who sold off stock after

0:00:12.280 --> 0:00:16.919
<v Speaker 1>receiving classified briefings on the coronavirus threat. The sales came

0:00:17.000 --> 0:00:21.680
<v Speaker 1>before stocks collapsed as the virus outbreak became a global pandemic.

0:00:22.120 --> 0:00:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mints apart in

0:00:25.079 --> 0:00:29.800
<v Speaker 1>McCarter and English. Is this a question of insider trading?

0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:33.880
<v Speaker 1>Is it just ethics violations? What is it if it's

0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:38.200
<v Speaker 1>not from a company, Well, it's really all the above, June. Really,

0:00:38.240 --> 0:00:42.240
<v Speaker 1>what regulators will be looking at here is whether or

0:00:42.280 --> 0:00:45.640
<v Speaker 1>not there's potential insider trading, or whether there's a potential

0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:49.640
<v Speaker 1>violation of something called the Stock Act, of which is

0:00:49.720 --> 0:00:53.360
<v Speaker 1>really just like insider trading, And what it really focuses

0:00:53.400 --> 0:00:56.160
<v Speaker 1>on is whether or not individual soul stock while in

0:00:56.240 --> 0:01:00.120
<v Speaker 1>possession of information that was not yet publicly available, and

0:01:00.120 --> 0:01:03.360
<v Speaker 1>whether or not that information was material to the pricing

0:01:03.440 --> 0:01:05.880
<v Speaker 1>of the stock, the same exact standard that is used

0:01:05.880 --> 0:01:09.720
<v Speaker 1>in all insider trading cases. In a tweet on Friday,

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:13.840
<v Speaker 1>Senator Burr denied any wrongdoing, saying that he relied solely

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:19.200
<v Speaker 1>on public news reports to inform his decisions. How will

0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:23.959
<v Speaker 1>investigators decide whether that's true. Well, it's really very much

0:01:24.080 --> 0:01:26.919
<v Speaker 1>the challenge that is faced in all insider trading cases,

0:01:26.959 --> 0:01:28.679
<v Speaker 1>and that is trying to get inside the head of

0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:32.640
<v Speaker 1>the trader to determine what caused the individual to make

0:01:32.920 --> 0:01:35.920
<v Speaker 1>the trading decisions that were made. And of course, again

0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:39.120
<v Speaker 1>it has to be information that is non public and

0:01:39.120 --> 0:01:41.640
<v Speaker 1>it has to be material, which means it would have

0:01:41.680 --> 0:01:45.039
<v Speaker 1>had to have caused a significant change in the stock price.

0:01:45.319 --> 0:01:48.600
<v Speaker 1>So here in the in the situation of Senator Burr,

0:01:48.640 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 1>we really have a circumstance where he was apparently pretty

0:01:51.720 --> 0:01:55.080
<v Speaker 1>to quite a few briefings. Um many of those briefings

0:01:55.160 --> 0:01:59.400
<v Speaker 1>were information that was publicly available. But then there was

0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:03.080
<v Speaker 1>also a thing that occurred, apparently on February twelve, which

0:02:03.080 --> 0:02:07.040
<v Speaker 1>focused on the United States being ready for this potential epidemic,

0:02:07.240 --> 0:02:10.760
<v Speaker 1>but also touched on the possible economic fallout. And it

0:02:10.840 --> 0:02:14.880
<v Speaker 1>was the very next day, February thirteenth, that apparently Center

0:02:14.919 --> 0:02:17.960
<v Speaker 1>Burst sold off some thirty three different stock holdings worth

0:02:17.960 --> 0:02:21.480
<v Speaker 1>a collective UH six twenty eight thousand to one point

0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:25.639
<v Speaker 1>seven million dollars, which represented a significant share of his portfolio.

0:02:26.000 --> 0:02:30.760
<v Speaker 1>Another Senator under scrutiny is Georgia Republican Kelly Loffler. She's

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:33.639
<v Speaker 1>sold off millions of dollars worth of stock beginning on

0:02:33.760 --> 0:02:37.400
<v Speaker 1>January That's the day the Health Committee she sits on

0:02:37.560 --> 0:02:41.000
<v Speaker 1>was briefed by US Public health officials. Um she would

0:02:41.040 --> 0:02:43.200
<v Speaker 1>have lost up to one and a half million dollars

0:02:43.200 --> 0:02:46.680
<v Speaker 1>if she held onto those stocks. I heard her say

0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:49.560
<v Speaker 1>that these are trades that she didn't know about, that

0:02:49.600 --> 0:02:54.600
<v Speaker 1>they're done automatically without her knowing about them until afterwards. Yeah. Well,

0:02:54.600 --> 0:02:58.040
<v Speaker 1>as when any insider stock deal, you have to show

0:02:58.080 --> 0:03:01.720
<v Speaker 1>that the person was the one who directed the trading.

0:03:02.040 --> 0:03:03.720
<v Speaker 1>That doesn't mean that they would have had to have

0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:06.920
<v Speaker 1>done it themselves. They certainly could have instructed their broker.

0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:09.240
<v Speaker 1>But if you have a circumstance, as some of the

0:03:09.320 --> 0:03:12.280
<v Speaker 1>Senators and some of the House members who did trade

0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.639
<v Speaker 1>have now stated publicly that these decisions were made without

0:03:15.680 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 1>their involved involvement, that they were either held in a

0:03:18.240 --> 0:03:21.640
<v Speaker 1>blind trust, or that they were investment advisors who were

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:25.000
<v Speaker 1>making these decisions without their input, then that would be

0:03:25.240 --> 0:03:28.799
<v Speaker 1>a defense to any insider trading charges or a potential

0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:32.639
<v Speaker 1>violation of the Stock Act of what about not attending

0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:37.920
<v Speaker 1>that meeting. Senators Diane fine Stein, a Democrat from California,

0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:43.040
<v Speaker 1>and James Inhoff, a Republican from Oklahoma, also sold assets

0:03:43.080 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>after that January briefing, but they both denied even attending

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.720
<v Speaker 1>the meeting, and fine Stein said her assets were held

0:03:50.760 --> 0:03:54.600
<v Speaker 1>in a blind trust. So if they didn't attend the

0:03:54.600 --> 0:03:59.960
<v Speaker 1>meeting but they still sold, does that have bearing. Absolutely,

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 1>It really doesn't so much depend on whether you tended

0:04:02.280 --> 0:04:04.960
<v Speaker 1>the meeting. It depends on whether you had the information. So,

0:04:05.040 --> 0:04:06.760
<v Speaker 1>for example, if you didn't attend the meeting, but one

0:04:06.760 --> 0:04:09.320
<v Speaker 1>of the other senators you did pass along the information

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:12.320
<v Speaker 1>to you, and then you use that to trade on it,

0:04:12.320 --> 0:04:15.080
<v Speaker 1>it could potentially be a violation of either of those

0:04:15.120 --> 0:04:17.800
<v Speaker 1>two statutes and insider trading laws or the Stock Act

0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:20.440
<v Speaker 1>of twenty twelve. There's also the possibility that the SEC

0:04:20.560 --> 0:04:23.400
<v Speaker 1>could take a look at this from a civil enforcement standard,

0:04:23.440 --> 0:04:26.400
<v Speaker 1>and that would be a case where the genitive proof

0:04:26.440 --> 0:04:29.719
<v Speaker 1>would be lower than there would be in a criminal case. Basically,

0:04:29.839 --> 0:04:32.600
<v Speaker 1>regulators would have to convince a judge or a jury

0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:37.480
<v Speaker 1>that the accused public official recklessly and consciously uh indifferent

0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:41.080
<v Speaker 1>to their produciary duties took these steps, and they would

0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:43.719
<v Speaker 1>only have to prove that by a preponderance of evidence.

0:04:43.720 --> 0:04:47.599
<v Speaker 1>So not only are they potentially looking at criminal charges here,

0:04:47.680 --> 0:04:51.159
<v Speaker 1>that's a possibility, there's also SEC taking civil enforcement actions.

0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:55.040
<v Speaker 1>And then there's also the possibility of ethics investigations by

0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:57.360
<v Speaker 1>the Senate or by the House into some of these trades.

0:04:57.600 --> 0:04:59.880
<v Speaker 1>But again, they would have to look at the timing

0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:04.039
<v Speaker 1>of it, what information was available to the individual directing

0:05:04.040 --> 0:05:07.400
<v Speaker 1>the trade, and then they have to surmount that difficult

0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:11.160
<v Speaker 1>hurdle of proving that the material the information was material

0:05:11.240 --> 0:05:14.560
<v Speaker 1>and that the decision was made based upon non public information.

0:05:14.880 --> 0:05:17.000
<v Speaker 1>And in the case of sender Burn, for example, we

0:05:17.040 --> 0:05:20.320
<v Speaker 1>could see that he was privy to both public and

0:05:20.480 --> 0:05:24.000
<v Speaker 1>non public information, and proving that it was the non

0:05:24.040 --> 0:05:27.920
<v Speaker 1>public information that precipitated the trading decision is a difficult one.

0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:31.240
<v Speaker 1>But that's the same um high hurdle that's faced by

0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:34.440
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors in all insider trading cases. The same high hurdle

0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:37.239
<v Speaker 1>was faced by the SEC and all civil enforcement actions

0:05:37.279 --> 0:05:41.599
<v Speaker 1>in the ethics investigations. Is it a different standard, is

0:05:41.600 --> 0:05:44.880
<v Speaker 1>it a different kind of inquiry? But yeah, that that's

0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:50.000
<v Speaker 1>a completely different kind of investigation. It's done by Senate

0:05:50.080 --> 0:05:54.800
<v Speaker 1>or House members themselves, and uh history tells us that

0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:59.400
<v Speaker 1>rarely are sanctions imposed by those investigations, but that can

0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:03.680
<v Speaker 1>ultimately result in the Senate or the House voting to

0:06:03.760 --> 0:06:06.760
<v Speaker 1>remove a member if they believe there has been a violation.

0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:09.560
<v Speaker 1>So that is another option, And in fact, Senator Burr

0:06:09.600 --> 0:06:12.800
<v Speaker 1>has publicly called for an investigation by the Senate Ethics

0:06:12.839 --> 0:06:16.200
<v Speaker 1>Committee into these trades, an attempt to clear his name. Yeah,

0:06:16.240 --> 0:06:19.920
<v Speaker 1>there's no question that the investigations by House or Senate

0:06:19.960 --> 0:06:23.720
<v Speaker 1>committees is going to be a standard that is less

0:06:23.720 --> 0:06:26.159
<v Speaker 1>than what prosecutors would have to meet in order to

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:29.440
<v Speaker 1>bring either civil or criminal charges. But you're really a

0:06:29.440 --> 0:06:31.880
<v Speaker 1>good point here, because what we're seeing in many ways

0:06:31.960 --> 0:06:35.840
<v Speaker 1>is a pattern that is similar to the financial crisis

0:06:35.920 --> 0:06:39.360
<v Speaker 1>of two thousand and eight, where we saw individuals in

0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:45.280
<v Speaker 1>corporate America being prosecuted by the SEC. Mainly where he

0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:49.280
<v Speaker 1>had instances of politically connected corporate insiders a top financial

0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:52.840
<v Speaker 1>institutions who had advanced knowledge of bailouts in the wake

0:06:52.920 --> 0:06:55.240
<v Speaker 1>of the two thousand and eight financial crisis, and who

0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:59.480
<v Speaker 1>used that information for stock trades anticipating the market reaction.

0:06:59.680 --> 0:07:01.359
<v Speaker 1>So I think where we're gonna see here is a

0:07:01.440 --> 0:07:04.760
<v Speaker 1>delay in enforcement. We're certainly not gonna see regulators moving

0:07:04.839 --> 0:07:07.080
<v Speaker 1>quickly on any of this, given the fact that they're

0:07:07.240 --> 0:07:09.160
<v Speaker 1>all working from home and there's quite a bit of

0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:12.200
<v Speaker 1>other things going on in the market that SEC officials

0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:14.080
<v Speaker 1>are gonna have to be looking at. But there are

0:07:14.080 --> 0:07:16.960
<v Speaker 1>going to be looking down the road at trades by

0:07:17.040 --> 0:07:19.920
<v Speaker 1>various people. This could be months, could be even years later,

0:07:20.240 --> 0:07:23.200
<v Speaker 1>because whenever you see this kind of market volatility, it

0:07:23.280 --> 0:07:26.440
<v Speaker 1>presents a heightened opportunity for insider trading, and we're going

0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:29.880
<v Speaker 1>to see regulators looking at the trading patterns of certain

0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:32.680
<v Speaker 1>individuals to see whether or not there's a possibility that

0:07:32.800 --> 0:07:36.280
<v Speaker 1>we're using inside information order to make those trading decisions.

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:42.680
<v Speaker 1>So Bob, explain basically what insider trading is. Sure, the

0:07:42.720 --> 0:07:46.720
<v Speaker 1>body of insider trading law points to some key guidance

0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:50.080
<v Speaker 1>when you're looking at what is legal and what is illegal.

0:07:50.480 --> 0:07:53.679
<v Speaker 1>Basically it comes down to don't trade on non public

0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:57.560
<v Speaker 1>information about listed companies, don't tell someone else to trade

0:07:57.600 --> 0:08:00.560
<v Speaker 1>on it, and don't lie if authorities have questions for

0:08:00.640 --> 0:08:04.160
<v Speaker 1>you about your trades or investments. The problem and the

0:08:04.240 --> 0:08:08.120
<v Speaker 1>challenge for prosecutors always for insider trading cases is demonstrating

0:08:08.320 --> 0:08:10.720
<v Speaker 1>the cause and effect, which you can get kind of murky.

0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:13.840
<v Speaker 1>Insider trading cases are not easy to make, which is

0:08:13.880 --> 0:08:17.720
<v Speaker 1>why you don't see them frequently prosecuted, and they're often complicated.

0:08:18.080 --> 0:08:22.200
<v Speaker 1>Insider trading, remember, is only illegal when the information is material,

0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:25.720
<v Speaker 1>meaning that it would have caused a significant change in

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:28.120
<v Speaker 1>the stock price. And it's also only illegal when the

0:08:28.160 --> 0:08:31.520
<v Speaker 1>information is known by the trader and not the public.

0:08:31.720 --> 0:08:34.640
<v Speaker 1>So it really requires prosecutors to get inside the head

0:08:34.640 --> 0:08:37.960
<v Speaker 1>of the trader, which they have to do circumstantially by

0:08:38.120 --> 0:08:42.440
<v Speaker 1>showing the pattern of trading prior to the incident, which

0:08:42.480 --> 0:08:45.520
<v Speaker 1>they believe is based on insider information, and showing that

0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:49.520
<v Speaker 1>based on the circumstantial evidence, the timing, the amount of trades,

0:08:49.800 --> 0:08:52.640
<v Speaker 1>all of that put together, it shows that the individuals

0:08:52.679 --> 0:08:55.600
<v Speaker 1>making the decision not based on public information and not

0:08:55.679 --> 0:08:59.520
<v Speaker 1>based on their past trading patterns, but arguably based on

0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:02.000
<v Speaker 1>infra nation that was not available to the public and

0:09:02.080 --> 0:09:05.320
<v Speaker 1>was ultimately the trayal on the stock price. So is

0:09:05.360 --> 0:09:09.720
<v Speaker 1>the fear here that corporate insiders could trade based on

0:09:09.800 --> 0:09:13.240
<v Speaker 1>advanced knowledge of let's say, government relief for airlines or

0:09:13.280 --> 0:09:17.960
<v Speaker 1>other companies before the measures are made public. Oh. Absolutely,

0:09:18.040 --> 0:09:22.120
<v Speaker 1>there's going to be unfortunately, lots of opportunities here due

0:09:22.120 --> 0:09:26.560
<v Speaker 1>to the enormous market volativity volatility that we're seeing and

0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:31.280
<v Speaker 1>the possibility of government bailouts and corporate insiders who may

0:09:31.280 --> 0:09:35.520
<v Speaker 1>have information about those bailouts before it's publicly known. Obviously,

0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:39.280
<v Speaker 1>we'll have the opportunity to potentially trade on that information

0:09:39.320 --> 0:09:41.640
<v Speaker 1>before the market reacts. That's the kind of thing that

0:09:41.720 --> 0:09:45.760
<v Speaker 1>regulators will be looking at, but it's probably information that

0:09:45.800 --> 0:09:48.440
<v Speaker 1>they'll be looking at in a delayed way down the road.

0:09:48.480 --> 0:09:50.400
<v Speaker 1>They're just not going to have the ability to look

0:09:50.400 --> 0:09:53.199
<v Speaker 1>at this kind of trading activity in real time. We're

0:09:53.200 --> 0:09:56.600
<v Speaker 1>going to see some delay months, maybe even years before

0:09:56.640 --> 0:09:59.400
<v Speaker 1>regulators can catch up on some of the trading that

0:09:59.440 --> 0:10:02.760
<v Speaker 1>may occur during this period of market volatility connected to

0:10:02.920 --> 0:10:06.040
<v Speaker 1>the coronavirus. Daniel Taylor, who is a professor at the

0:10:06.120 --> 0:10:11.280
<v Speaker 1>University of Pennsylvania's Business School, said that the pattern we

0:10:11.320 --> 0:10:15.160
<v Speaker 1>saw what the financial crisis appears to be repeating itself.

0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:17.640
<v Speaker 1>Can you explain a little bit about what happened then

0:10:17.840 --> 0:10:20.680
<v Speaker 1>compared to what's happening now, Sure, what we're talking about

0:10:20.760 --> 0:10:25.520
<v Speaker 1>here is the same potential government bailout system where we

0:10:25.600 --> 0:10:28.560
<v Speaker 1>saw in the financial crisis of two thousand and eight.

0:10:28.840 --> 0:10:33.040
<v Speaker 1>There are instances in which politically connected corporated ciders at

0:10:33.160 --> 0:10:37.120
<v Speaker 1>financial institutions who may have had advanced knowledge about these

0:10:37.200 --> 0:10:39.440
<v Speaker 1>bailouts and the wake of that two thousand and eight

0:10:39.520 --> 0:10:43.800
<v Speaker 1>financial crisis, use that information for stock trades anticipating the

0:10:43.840 --> 0:10:46.640
<v Speaker 1>market reaction. So, in other words, if they were prevy

0:10:46.679 --> 0:10:48.920
<v Speaker 1>new information that a bailout was coming, and they knew

0:10:48.920 --> 0:10:51.000
<v Speaker 1>that was going to cause a jump in the stock price,

0:10:51.080 --> 0:10:53.880
<v Speaker 1>which is at that point had been enormously depressed, they

0:10:53.920 --> 0:10:56.480
<v Speaker 1>could trade on that information. And given the fact that

0:10:56.520 --> 0:10:59.880
<v Speaker 1>we can expect to see a similar amount of government

0:11:00.000 --> 0:11:02.960
<v Speaker 1>allowed to different industries, which as the airline industry and others,

0:11:03.320 --> 0:11:07.480
<v Speaker 1>that information presents opportunities for those to trade on the information.

0:11:07.840 --> 0:11:11.359
<v Speaker 1>This heightened opportunity for insider trading is something that regulators

0:11:11.400 --> 0:11:14.520
<v Speaker 1>will no doubt be looking at, and those trading records

0:11:14.520 --> 0:11:17.280
<v Speaker 1>will be available to them after the fact to try

0:11:17.280 --> 0:11:19.360
<v Speaker 1>to figure out the timing of when those trades were

0:11:19.360 --> 0:11:21.520
<v Speaker 1>made versus the information that they have been available to

0:11:21.559 --> 0:11:24.640
<v Speaker 1>these corporate insiders, to try to piece together a case

0:11:24.720 --> 0:11:27.680
<v Speaker 1>for insider trading. But these cases, again are always difficult

0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:30.400
<v Speaker 1>to prove, so it remains to be seen whether we're

0:11:30.400 --> 0:11:32.960
<v Speaker 1>going to see a real spike in insider trading prosecutions

0:11:33.040 --> 0:11:37.079
<v Speaker 1>in the wake of some of these anticipated government bailouts. Bob,

0:11:37.120 --> 0:11:41.840
<v Speaker 1>if you remember, were any executives given jail time for

0:11:41.920 --> 0:11:46.120
<v Speaker 1>insider trading during the financial crisis or was it mainly

0:11:46.240 --> 0:11:50.079
<v Speaker 1>penalties that they had to pay. No, that's a great

0:11:50.120 --> 0:11:53.880
<v Speaker 1>example because even during the bailouts of two thousand eight,

0:11:53.920 --> 0:11:58.240
<v Speaker 1>we saw very few insider trading cases actually being brought

0:11:58.320 --> 0:12:03.880
<v Speaker 1>where people were criminally responsible. For example, Angelo Mozilo, who

0:12:03.960 --> 0:12:07.160
<v Speaker 1>was the co founder and CEO of Countrywide Financial. There

0:12:07.280 --> 0:12:10.440
<v Speaker 1>is a very high profile case in which this Morgage

0:12:10.480 --> 0:12:14.120
<v Speaker 1>company faced financial clap collapsed in two thousand and eight

0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:17.600
<v Speaker 1>before being purchased by Bank of America, and in that case,

0:12:18.200 --> 0:12:21.880
<v Speaker 1>Mr Brazilla paid a multimillion dollar penalty to the sec

0:12:22.160 --> 0:12:25.520
<v Speaker 1>but never admitted or denied any wrongdoing and there were

0:12:25.520 --> 0:12:28.439
<v Speaker 1>no criminal charges brought. As an example of how difficult

0:12:28.440 --> 0:12:30.720
<v Speaker 1>it is to bring these types of cases. Do you

0:12:30.800 --> 0:12:34.920
<v Speaker 1>think years before we'll see any of these cases. Yeah,

0:12:34.960 --> 0:12:37.720
<v Speaker 1>I think we're gonna have to wait to see how

0:12:37.760 --> 0:12:41.760
<v Speaker 1>this whole crisis plays out on the economy. There's going

0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:45.720
<v Speaker 1>to be instances where uh, there are drug approvals, there's

0:12:45.760 --> 0:12:49.120
<v Speaker 1>going to be Medicare coverage issues, there's going to be

0:12:49.240 --> 0:12:53.040
<v Speaker 1>government bailout issues. There's all kinds of information that is

0:12:53.080 --> 0:12:55.440
<v Speaker 1>going to have an impact on the market, uh and

0:12:55.520 --> 0:12:58.520
<v Speaker 1>will result in markets either moving up or down, and

0:12:58.600 --> 0:13:02.160
<v Speaker 1>that information present opportunities always for people to trade on

0:13:02.280 --> 0:13:05.520
<v Speaker 1>the information, but it will take the government years probably

0:13:05.640 --> 0:13:07.800
<v Speaker 1>rather than months, to unravel whether or not there was

0:13:07.840 --> 0:13:10.559
<v Speaker 1>anything done illegally in any of these trades. That's former

0:13:10.559 --> 0:13:16.800
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutor Robert Ment's a partner mcarter and English. Thanks

0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:20.160
<v Speaker 1>for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

0:13:20.160 --> 0:13:23.400
<v Speaker 1>and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and

0:13:23.480 --> 0:13:27.960
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Rosso. This

0:13:28.280 --> 0:13:31.640
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg. Yeah.