WEBVTT - Why Gruyère Is Now Just Another Cheese

0:00:03.120 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.119 --> 0:00:11.800
<v Speaker 1>Gruia cheese was created in the eleven fifteen in the

0:00:11.840 --> 0:00:16.079
<v Speaker 1>communal Fribou in a small medieval village called Gruyere. It

0:00:16.120 --> 0:00:18.320
<v Speaker 1>was only in sixteen o two that the cheese became

0:00:18.360 --> 0:00:22.040
<v Speaker 1>known as Gruyer without the s. Today, two hundred village

0:00:22.079 --> 0:00:25.680
<v Speaker 1>daies and fifty Alpine daries from five select cantons still

0:00:25.720 --> 0:00:29.160
<v Speaker 1>follow the original recipe for this press cheese. What makes

0:00:29.200 --> 0:00:33.479
<v Speaker 1>Gruyere cheese Gruyer, Well, it's no longer because the cheese

0:00:33.479 --> 0:00:36.720
<v Speaker 1>comes from the Gruyer region of Switzerland and France. A

0:00:36.840 --> 0:00:41.200
<v Speaker 1>federal appeals court has ruled that, like Feda Monster or Parmesan,

0:00:41.640 --> 0:00:45.560
<v Speaker 1>Gruyer can be produced anywhere and sold as Gruyere here

0:00:45.560 --> 0:00:48.159
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. Joining me is an expert in

0:00:48.280 --> 0:00:52.720
<v Speaker 1>trademark law, Professor Willigene McLean of the University of Connecticut

0:00:52.800 --> 0:00:56.920
<v Speaker 1>Law School. This case came about because groups representing cheese

0:00:56.920 --> 0:01:01.280
<v Speaker 1>producers from Switzerland and France were asked the US Patent

0:01:01.320 --> 0:01:04.679
<v Speaker 1>and Trademark Office for a mark that would restrict the

0:01:04.840 --> 0:01:10.200
<v Speaker 1>use of Gruyere to cheese from the Gruyer region. Tell

0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:14.640
<v Speaker 1>us about that, So what they're looking for is to

0:01:14.680 --> 0:01:20.360
<v Speaker 1>get what's known as a certification mark, which is a

0:01:20.440 --> 0:01:26.240
<v Speaker 1>form of trademark. And what a certification mark does is

0:01:26.360 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 1>show compliance with a set of standards. So like the

0:01:31.840 --> 0:01:36.120
<v Speaker 1>underwriter's lab mark, it's not used by the owner itself.

0:01:36.160 --> 0:01:41.039
<v Speaker 1>It's used on products made by others saying this product

0:01:41.200 --> 0:01:46.640
<v Speaker 1>was made according to our standards and therefore it gets

0:01:46.720 --> 0:01:52.520
<v Speaker 1>the seal of approval that it emanated from the Gruyer region,

0:01:52.840 --> 0:01:57.160
<v Speaker 1>which is in France end Switzerland. And the Fourth Circuit

0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:01.200
<v Speaker 1>ruled that the term Gruyer is generic as a matter

0:02:01.240 --> 0:02:06.560
<v Speaker 1>of law. What significance is that? So a term that

0:02:06.760 --> 0:02:12.960
<v Speaker 1>is generic can never function as a trademark because it's

0:02:13.000 --> 0:02:17.160
<v Speaker 1>a term that is needed by all to use. For example,

0:02:17.480 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>you can't get a trademark just for bank for financial

0:02:23.200 --> 0:02:26.920
<v Speaker 1>services because other financial services need to be able to

0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:31.080
<v Speaker 1>use the term bank. So the question that gets asked,

0:02:31.120 --> 0:02:34.720
<v Speaker 1>and this is a simple form of determining whether or

0:02:34.760 --> 0:02:38.720
<v Speaker 1>not a term is generic, is to ask who are you?

0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:43.519
<v Speaker 1>What are you? If the answer to who are you

0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:46.720
<v Speaker 1>is where do you come from? You come from La

0:02:46.880 --> 0:02:51.919
<v Speaker 1>Gruere in Switzerland, then it operates as a mark if

0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:55.799
<v Speaker 1>it answers what are you? I e. What are you

0:02:55.960 --> 0:03:01.200
<v Speaker 1>griere cheese? Then it generic? And so what the court

0:03:01.400 --> 0:03:05.680
<v Speaker 1>was looking at is the question what the primary significance

0:03:05.800 --> 0:03:10.880
<v Speaker 1>of the term greer is to the consumer? Right? Does

0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:15.880
<v Speaker 1>it describe the type of product rather than the producer.

0:03:16.080 --> 0:03:19.480
<v Speaker 1>If it's the type of product, Dennis, generic should be

0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:23.200
<v Speaker 1>out there for any cheesemaker who makes it, according to

0:03:23.240 --> 0:03:28.360
<v Speaker 1>the FDA regulations, to say here is greer cheese. In

0:03:28.400 --> 0:03:30.960
<v Speaker 1>its opinion, the court went through the history of gruyere

0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:35.160
<v Speaker 1>to determine how cheese consumers in the US think of it.

0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:37.320
<v Speaker 1>You know, they basically think of it as that a

0:03:37.360 --> 0:03:40.320
<v Speaker 1>type of cheese that has a particular flavor in A

0:03:40.400 --> 0:03:44.720
<v Speaker 1>part of the problem, I think is that the French

0:03:44.760 --> 0:03:49.800
<v Speaker 1>and swissmakers didn't police the use of the term gruyere

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:53.640
<v Speaker 1>well enough. And so if it's been sold in the

0:03:53.800 --> 0:03:57.680
<v Speaker 1>US since nineteen eighty seven, it was only in twenty

0:03:57.760 --> 0:04:01.360
<v Speaker 1>twelve when they woke up and said, oh, maybe we

0:04:01.520 --> 0:04:06.200
<v Speaker 1>better start saying gruyere can only come from this specific region,

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:09.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, and by that time the horses out of

0:04:09.520 --> 0:04:15.080
<v Speaker 1>the proverbial barn. They never challenged the FDA designation of

0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:19.280
<v Speaker 1>what gruyer was. That was in nineteen seventy seven, so

0:04:19.520 --> 0:04:23.760
<v Speaker 1>they let too much time elapse. I think that's part

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:28.799
<v Speaker 1>of their problem. The French and Swiss groups also complained

0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:32.640
<v Speaker 1>that the case was decided the summary judgment stage and

0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:38.600
<v Speaker 1>those opposing the geographic indicator hadn't submitted a consumer survey

0:04:38.680 --> 0:04:42.279
<v Speaker 1>into evidence, and the court said this argument slices the

0:04:42.360 --> 0:04:45.760
<v Speaker 1>cheese too thinly. Did the court make this decision without

0:04:45.839 --> 0:04:50.400
<v Speaker 1>any consumer surveys? Is that unusual? So that's an interesting question.

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:55.000
<v Speaker 1>When I teach my class, I say, consumer survey, consumer survey,

0:04:55.040 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 1>consumer survey. But there are precedents. There are cases in

0:05:00.680 --> 0:05:05.520
<v Speaker 1>which they say consumer surveys are great. But if you

0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:12.680
<v Speaker 1>have overwhelming evidence that the term is generic, we don't

0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 1>necessarily need a consumer survey, and the consumer survey wouldn't

0:05:19.040 --> 0:05:23.919
<v Speaker 1>necessarily have changed the result. There are other ways in

0:05:24.160 --> 0:05:28.440
<v Speaker 1>which evidence can be produced as to whether or not

0:05:28.520 --> 0:05:34.080
<v Speaker 1>a term is generic. How is it used in the press,

0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:39.599
<v Speaker 1>Does it appear in a dictionary? To give an idea

0:05:40.000 --> 0:05:45.040
<v Speaker 1>of how the general public views the term. The French

0:05:45.040 --> 0:05:48.760
<v Speaker 1>and Swiss groups said they've been as you mentioned, they

0:05:48.839 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 1>started this about twenty ten, and they said they're going

0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>to still continue efforts to protect the Gruyeer name, vigorously

0:05:57.040 --> 0:05:59.960
<v Speaker 1>continue efforts to protect the Gruyer name. Is there any

0:06:00.040 --> 0:06:02.200
<v Speaker 1>thing else they can do besides try to get the

0:06:02.200 --> 0:06:04.880
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court to look at this? They can try to

0:06:04.920 --> 0:06:07.520
<v Speaker 1>get the Supreme Court to look at this. I be

0:06:08.680 --> 0:06:15.000
<v Speaker 1>surprised at the Supreme Court took this case. You know,

0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:19.080
<v Speaker 1>that's the next level right would be to take it

0:06:19.160 --> 0:06:23.520
<v Speaker 1>to the Supreme Court. I think they have a hard

0:06:24.240 --> 0:06:28.320
<v Speaker 1>road to home. The US Patent and Trademark Office and

0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:31.800
<v Speaker 1>the District Court judge ruled the same way as the

0:06:31.839 --> 0:06:35.560
<v Speaker 1>Fourth Circuit. So this was sort of an expected decision

0:06:35.600 --> 0:06:39.280
<v Speaker 1>that the Fourth Circuit didn't do anything crazy here. I

0:06:39.279 --> 0:06:42.919
<v Speaker 1>don't think the Fourth Circuit did anything crazy. Now. You know,

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:47.440
<v Speaker 1>the District Court got this on appeal from the trademark

0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:50.440
<v Speaker 1>Trial on appeal board. And one of the things that

0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:54.680
<v Speaker 1>the District Court has to do, according to the Fourth Circuit,

0:06:55.200 --> 0:07:00.760
<v Speaker 1>is to look at all the evidence afresh from the

0:07:01.120 --> 0:07:05.920
<v Speaker 1>beginning denovo and so it gave little deference to what

0:07:06.040 --> 0:07:10.360
<v Speaker 1>the treatmark trialappuel Board decided, and so it took everything

0:07:10.600 --> 0:07:17.440
<v Speaker 1>that the parties brought. They had more evidentiary information, and

0:07:17.520 --> 0:07:22.360
<v Speaker 1>they came up with Yes, the ttabes right, this is generic.

0:07:22.680 --> 0:07:26.000
<v Speaker 1>The question comes to the Fourth Circuit. They look at

0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:29.080
<v Speaker 1>what the District Court did. There were a couple of

0:07:29.120 --> 0:07:32.560
<v Speaker 1>things that they said, you know, the District Court should

0:07:32.600 --> 0:07:38.200
<v Speaker 1>not have done, but on the whole it was a

0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:43.240
<v Speaker 1>reasonable decision, and the Fourth Circuit said, it's widely considered

0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:47.160
<v Speaker 1>among the greatest of all cheeses according to the Oxford

0:07:47.240 --> 0:07:51.760
<v Speaker 1>Companion to Cheese. It's for Companion to Cheese, saying that

0:07:51.800 --> 0:07:55.840
<v Speaker 1>it's widely considered among the greatest of all cheeses. It's

0:07:55.920 --> 0:07:59.960
<v Speaker 1>widely considered among the greatest of all cheeses, according to

0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:04.040
<v Speaker 1>The Oxford Companion to Cheese. Thanks so much, Willa Jean.

0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:07.680
<v Speaker 1>That's Professor Willa Jean McClean of the University of Connecticut

0:08:07.760 --> 0:08:13.000
<v Speaker 1>Law School. Tiger Woods is calling the woman suing him

0:08:13.040 --> 0:08:18.760
<v Speaker 1>for thirty million dollars just a jilted ex girlfriend. Erica Herman,

0:08:18.920 --> 0:08:21.920
<v Speaker 1>claims Woods tricked her into leaving the home they lived

0:08:21.960 --> 0:08:25.040
<v Speaker 1>in together for six years, and claims she still had

0:08:25.120 --> 0:08:28.320
<v Speaker 1>five years left to stay due to an oral agreement,

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:32.719
<v Speaker 1>but Wood says there's no such oral tenancy agreement. To

0:08:32.760 --> 0:08:36.520
<v Speaker 1>add to the legal complications, Herman is attempting to break

0:08:36.559 --> 0:08:39.840
<v Speaker 1>out of the non disclosure agreement she signed in twenty

0:08:39.880 --> 0:08:45.360
<v Speaker 1>seventeen when she began dating Woods, claiming it's unenforceable under

0:08:45.360 --> 0:08:49.280
<v Speaker 1>a federal law that nullifies NDAs if there are matters

0:08:49.320 --> 0:08:54.400
<v Speaker 1>involving sexual assault or harassment. Joining me Dominic Romano and

0:08:54.480 --> 0:08:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Daniel Braverman of Romano Law Dominic, what do we know

0:08:58.240 --> 0:09:02.240
<v Speaker 1>about the NDA? All we know about the NDA is

0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:05.120
<v Speaker 1>that there's an arbitration clause. The reason that's all we

0:09:05.200 --> 0:09:08.920
<v Speaker 1>know about the NBA is because the entire confidentiality agreement

0:09:09.000 --> 0:09:12.480
<v Speaker 1>has been redacted save for the arbitration clause. Do we

0:09:12.520 --> 0:09:15.160
<v Speaker 1>assume she wants to get out of the NDA because

0:09:15.360 --> 0:09:21.520
<v Speaker 1>it requires confidential arbitration in all disputes between the parties? Exactly.

0:09:21.600 --> 0:09:24.760
<v Speaker 1>That's the stated reason. Anyway, Let's talk about why her

0:09:24.880 --> 0:09:29.839
<v Speaker 1>lawyer says that agreement is invalid. They're using four grounds.

0:09:29.880 --> 0:09:33.400
<v Speaker 1>They're saying that the court should grant a declaratory judgment

0:09:33.480 --> 0:09:37.440
<v Speaker 1>invalidating the NBA for two reasons. The first reason is

0:09:37.480 --> 0:09:41.800
<v Speaker 1>there wasn't sufficient consideration and because it's unconscionable. The second

0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:46.240
<v Speaker 1>reason is because the scope of the NBA is overbroad.

0:09:46.440 --> 0:09:49.120
<v Speaker 1>But the third and the fourth reasons are the ones

0:09:49.160 --> 0:09:52.760
<v Speaker 1>that raise eyebrows. They're saying that the NDA is unenforceable

0:09:53.000 --> 0:09:56.679
<v Speaker 1>in this case because it calls for an arbitrator to

0:09:56.800 --> 0:10:00.839
<v Speaker 1>decide the dispute under the Federal Ending Forest Arbitration of

0:10:00.920 --> 0:10:03.839
<v Speaker 1>Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of twenty twenty one.

0:10:03.920 --> 0:10:07.199
<v Speaker 1>And the fourth and final reason, they're saying that the

0:10:07.200 --> 0:10:12.560
<v Speaker 1>Woods NBA is not enforceable in this case, interestingly under

0:10:12.600 --> 0:10:17.240
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Speak Out Act, which invalidates nbas where there

0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:22.320
<v Speaker 1>are claims of or allegations of sexual harassment and sexual

0:10:22.320 --> 0:10:26.320
<v Speaker 1>assault in a civil cover sheet. Her attorney indicated no

0:10:26.720 --> 0:10:31.720
<v Speaker 1>when asked if the case involves allegations of sexual assault.

0:10:32.760 --> 0:10:37.240
<v Speaker 1>Did you see anything in the papers that made allegations

0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:41.240
<v Speaker 1>of sexual assault or harassment? No? And that's the curious

0:10:41.320 --> 0:10:45.800
<v Speaker 1>thing about this filing. The original lawsuit was over an

0:10:45.920 --> 0:10:49.440
<v Speaker 1>oral tendency agreement filed Martin County in Florida. The original

0:10:49.480 --> 0:10:54.080
<v Speaker 1>filing made no mention and had no allegation of sexual

0:10:54.120 --> 0:10:58.520
<v Speaker 1>assault sexual harassment. It seems as though, in response to

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:03.000
<v Speaker 1>the motion to come how arbitration, they are now arriving

0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:08.160
<v Speaker 1>at this avenue interesting legal tactic of the sexual assault

0:11:08.160 --> 0:11:12.000
<v Speaker 1>and sexual harassment angle as a way of overturning not

0:11:12.120 --> 0:11:16.600
<v Speaker 1>only the forest arbitrations, but also the NBA itself and

0:11:16.679 --> 0:11:20.160
<v Speaker 1>its entirety. Dan tell us about the oral tendency agreement.

0:11:20.480 --> 0:11:23.640
<v Speaker 1>She's claning they had, you know, they had a relationship.

0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:25.960
<v Speaker 1>From claim she was promised that she would have a

0:11:26.040 --> 0:11:28.920
<v Speaker 1>tendency in his home and that that period of time

0:11:29.160 --> 0:11:30.960
<v Speaker 1>was five years that already took place, and that there's

0:11:30.960 --> 0:11:33.760
<v Speaker 1>another six years that she's entitled to live in that home.

0:11:33.840 --> 0:11:36.560
<v Speaker 1>So she's a plaining that's totally oral. There's nothing in writing.

0:11:36.640 --> 0:11:39.640
<v Speaker 1>She hasn't produced any type of documentation. And what we

0:11:39.640 --> 0:11:42.960
<v Speaker 1>find interesting obviously is that obviously when there was a

0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:46.560
<v Speaker 1>need to enter into a nondisclosure agreement or an arbitration agreement,

0:11:46.720 --> 0:11:49.080
<v Speaker 1>that's clearly in writing. So it does seem, at least

0:11:49.080 --> 0:11:51.679
<v Speaker 1>in my opinion, seems interesting that if someone's going to

0:11:51.800 --> 0:11:54.920
<v Speaker 1>enter into a tendency agreement, almost like a last to

0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:56.480
<v Speaker 1>agree to lit someone live in your house for a

0:11:56.880 --> 0:11:59.080
<v Speaker 1>very long period of time, you would expect there would

0:11:59.080 --> 0:12:01.839
<v Speaker 1>be some type of writing that would reflect that. But

0:12:01.920 --> 0:12:05.040
<v Speaker 1>this is an oral agreement that she's claiming exists, and

0:12:05.080 --> 0:12:07.160
<v Speaker 1>she's claiming that she was forced out of this home

0:12:07.160 --> 0:12:10.719
<v Speaker 1>in violation that oral agreement at trial. Let's say this

0:12:10.880 --> 0:12:13.440
<v Speaker 1>gets to trial and it's not settled other than as

0:12:13.440 --> 0:12:17.160
<v Speaker 1>he said, she said situation, are there other ways that

0:12:17.240 --> 0:12:20.160
<v Speaker 1>she could prove an oral tendency? You know, we deal

0:12:20.160 --> 0:12:22.600
<v Speaker 1>with this a lot, and an oral contract can sometimes

0:12:22.600 --> 0:12:24.839
<v Speaker 1>be just as valid as a written contract. What you'd

0:12:24.880 --> 0:12:26.959
<v Speaker 1>have to do is you'd have to testify, and obviously

0:12:26.960 --> 0:12:28.720
<v Speaker 1>we see this all the time. Some people are more

0:12:28.760 --> 0:12:31.680
<v Speaker 1>credible than others, so it'll be under oath testimony. In addition,

0:12:31.720 --> 0:12:34.120
<v Speaker 1>you may have witnesses and maybe people that you told

0:12:34.120 --> 0:12:36.920
<v Speaker 1>about this tendency, or maybe that, assuming it did exist,

0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:39.480
<v Speaker 1>that Tiger Woods might have stated it to someone else,

0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:42.080
<v Speaker 1>So there might be other people that potentially could come forward.

0:12:42.440 --> 0:12:45.160
<v Speaker 1>But as you point out with your question, obviously much

0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:47.800
<v Speaker 1>much easier to prove a tendency agreement, or any type

0:12:47.800 --> 0:12:50.360
<v Speaker 1>of agreements for that matter, to have something writing, whether

0:12:50.480 --> 0:12:53.480
<v Speaker 1>the text, email, some type of written communication, And as

0:12:53.480 --> 0:12:55.720
<v Speaker 1>of now, that doesn't seem to exist, because I would

0:12:55.720 --> 0:12:57.880
<v Speaker 1>be shocked if that did exist. Why would not be

0:12:57.920 --> 0:13:00.280
<v Speaker 1>in a complaint that was filed? The damage is there

0:13:00.280 --> 0:13:04.120
<v Speaker 1>an eye popping thirty million dollars based on the rental

0:13:04.200 --> 0:13:07.079
<v Speaker 1>value of that property. What kind of property is that?

0:13:07.160 --> 0:13:09.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. Yeah, well, I'm sure it's a use home,

0:13:09.880 --> 0:13:12.000
<v Speaker 1>I'll put it that much. But I mean, she's obviously

0:13:12.040 --> 0:13:14.960
<v Speaker 1>claiming that the value of six years would be five

0:13:15.000 --> 0:13:17.480
<v Speaker 1>million dollars per year, and that by her being removed

0:13:17.480 --> 0:13:19.960
<v Speaker 1>from the home, that she should be entitled to five

0:13:19.960 --> 0:13:22.720
<v Speaker 1>million dollars for each year that you know she would

0:13:22.720 --> 0:13:24.600
<v Speaker 1>have otherwise been in that home. I agree, it's an

0:13:24.600 --> 0:13:27.760
<v Speaker 1>eye popping number. I'm not sure if that was done purposely. Obviously,

0:13:27.800 --> 0:13:30.439
<v Speaker 1>that's what's grabbing everyone's attention. But in the statue that

0:13:30.520 --> 0:13:32.680
<v Speaker 1>does allow for on the Florida law, you know, for

0:13:32.720 --> 0:13:35.880
<v Speaker 1>certain types of damages if you're wrongfully excluded from from

0:13:35.880 --> 0:13:41.679
<v Speaker 1>your residence. Herman claims that Wood's used premeditated, prohibited practices

0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:45.400
<v Speaker 1>and trickery to get her to leave the mansion. Wood

0:13:45.440 --> 0:13:47.280
<v Speaker 1>says that he arranged for her to stay at a

0:13:47.320 --> 0:13:51.200
<v Speaker 1>local luxury resort and provided funds she could apply toward

0:13:51.240 --> 0:13:54.440
<v Speaker 1>a new residence. So does it matter under Florida law?

0:13:54.880 --> 0:13:56.880
<v Speaker 1>I think generally the answer is probably not. It's not

0:13:56.920 --> 0:13:58.920
<v Speaker 1>a tremendous amount of a difference. But obviously, if you

0:13:59.000 --> 0:14:01.040
<v Speaker 1>were on the fence as to whether or not somebody

0:14:01.120 --> 0:14:03.240
<v Speaker 1>was you know, wrongfully excuted from the home or kicked

0:14:03.280 --> 0:14:06.120
<v Speaker 1>out of their house without proper procedure. The more interesting,

0:14:06.120 --> 0:14:07.880
<v Speaker 1>I'll put it that way, the facts that are alleged

0:14:07.920 --> 0:14:09.760
<v Speaker 1>with how that was done, I think it might help

0:14:09.920 --> 0:14:12.559
<v Speaker 1>persuade a judge or jury or you know, an arbitrator

0:14:12.600 --> 0:14:15.040
<v Speaker 1>that you were wrongfully treated in this matter. Here as

0:14:15.080 --> 0:14:17.199
<v Speaker 1>we knows, what we've been reading is apparently I think

0:14:17.200 --> 0:14:19.000
<v Speaker 1>the claim is that she was told she was going

0:14:19.000 --> 0:14:21.520
<v Speaker 1>on a vacation or some type of trip which got

0:14:21.520 --> 0:14:23.720
<v Speaker 1>out of pat bags, probably sufficient to be out of

0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:25.600
<v Speaker 1>the home for a period of time, and once she

0:14:25.680 --> 0:14:28.040
<v Speaker 1>was out, she was told that the relationship was over

0:14:28.080 --> 0:14:30.000
<v Speaker 1>and that she was no longer welcome. Do you think

0:14:30.000 --> 0:14:32.840
<v Speaker 1>the likelihood of this is a settlement that this is

0:14:32.920 --> 0:14:37.720
<v Speaker 1>done to perhaps negotiations fell through and the latest is

0:14:37.800 --> 0:14:42.320
<v Speaker 1>intended to drive up the settlement numbers, you know, larger?

0:14:42.640 --> 0:14:45.960
<v Speaker 1>Two things on that point. Number one, I wonder whether

0:14:46.200 --> 0:14:49.840
<v Speaker 1>this entire dispute could have been would have been avoided

0:14:50.000 --> 0:14:53.000
<v Speaker 1>if a different method had been used at the outside,

0:14:53.240 --> 0:14:56.880
<v Speaker 1>you know, had she not been basically accosted of the

0:14:56.920 --> 0:15:00.240
<v Speaker 1>airport a couple of his people, according to reports, then

0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:03.520
<v Speaker 1>told she's barred from re entering a place where she'd

0:15:03.520 --> 0:15:05.680
<v Speaker 1>lived for a number of years. If this might have

0:15:05.760 --> 0:15:09.840
<v Speaker 1>been resolved privately and confidentially at that point and at

0:15:09.880 --> 0:15:12.520
<v Speaker 1>this point, it's highly likely in my view that this

0:15:12.760 --> 0:15:16.640
<v Speaker 1>entire initiative, the objective, the endgame here is to expedite

0:15:16.960 --> 0:15:20.120
<v Speaker 1>the inevitable settlement that is highly likely to occur here.

0:15:20.360 --> 0:15:23.960
<v Speaker 1>I agree, I do. I think it's also important to

0:15:23.960 --> 0:15:26.120
<v Speaker 1>look at, like the procedural history of this matter. You know,

0:15:26.200 --> 0:15:28.520
<v Speaker 1>the complaint initially was filed when she was removed from

0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:30.920
<v Speaker 1>the home in October twenty twenty two, and if you

0:15:30.920 --> 0:15:33.600
<v Speaker 1>look at that complaint, it's an all tendency agreement. I mean,

0:15:33.680 --> 0:15:36.720
<v Speaker 1>the goal here was she was suing because she believed

0:15:36.720 --> 0:15:38.320
<v Speaker 1>she was entitled to be in that home for another

0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:40.440
<v Speaker 1>six years, and she was suing for thirty million dollars.

0:15:40.480 --> 0:15:44.000
<v Speaker 1>There was no suggestion of any other wrongdoing et cetera,

0:15:44.040 --> 0:15:46.880
<v Speaker 1>allygames and etc. After she filed that complaint, would his

0:15:47.000 --> 0:15:51.080
<v Speaker 1>team files for arbitration. It's saying that the nondisclosures enforceable,

0:15:51.160 --> 0:15:54.280
<v Speaker 1>and more importantly or equally importantly, all her claims have

0:15:54.400 --> 0:15:56.800
<v Speaker 1>to be an arbitration, and then after that was filed,

0:15:57.160 --> 0:15:59.440
<v Speaker 1>then she followed a new claim which was just filed

0:15:59.480 --> 0:16:02.120
<v Speaker 1>earlier this month, which was trying to get the NDA

0:16:02.200 --> 0:16:05.600
<v Speaker 1>declared unenforceable, as well as a ruling that the matter

0:16:05.680 --> 0:16:08.880
<v Speaker 1>isn't arbitrable under those two laws that dominant excited earlier,

0:16:09.160 --> 0:16:11.280
<v Speaker 1>which is under the Speak Out Act, etc. And the

0:16:11.400 --> 0:16:14.040
<v Speaker 1>end of forced arbitration. But what's interesting about it is

0:16:14.040 --> 0:16:16.280
<v Speaker 1>when you look at the new lawsuit, that new lawsuit,

0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:19.400
<v Speaker 1>although there aren't specific allegations, just the mere fact that

0:16:19.440 --> 0:16:23.040
<v Speaker 1>it mentions potential allegations, or at least if you're bringing

0:16:23.240 --> 0:16:27.160
<v Speaker 1>a lawsuit to have something invalidated under a law that

0:16:27.240 --> 0:16:29.480
<v Speaker 1>only allows you to invalidate it, if you're making sexual

0:16:29.560 --> 0:16:33.320
<v Speaker 1>or assement of sexual assault allegations, it makes someone wonder

0:16:33.960 --> 0:16:36.640
<v Speaker 1>do you have those allegations? It just makes you question that.

0:16:36.760 --> 0:16:39.480
<v Speaker 1>I think that threat or that concern, as well as

0:16:39.520 --> 0:16:41.720
<v Speaker 1>the publicity of it, might be enough to make someone

0:16:41.760 --> 0:16:43.560
<v Speaker 1>want to resolve the suit, whether they did anything wrong

0:16:43.680 --> 0:16:46.120
<v Speaker 1>or not. So I think that's that's an important point

0:16:46.160 --> 0:16:48.160
<v Speaker 1>that I see from the procedural history that we've seen

0:16:48.160 --> 0:16:51.000
<v Speaker 1>in this matter. And June I would add to that,

0:16:51.400 --> 0:16:54.480
<v Speaker 1>not only to resolve the dispute and an expedited matter,

0:16:54.960 --> 0:17:00.040
<v Speaker 1>probably with a higher settlement that might have originally and

0:17:00.120 --> 0:17:04.040
<v Speaker 1>agreed upon had these claims, these additional claims not been

0:17:04.040 --> 0:17:07.960
<v Speaker 1>made because they present a greater reputational hazard to the celebrity.

0:17:08.320 --> 0:17:11.159
<v Speaker 1>Where does the six years come from? My best guess

0:17:11.320 --> 0:17:13.920
<v Speaker 1>is it may be related to the age of one

0:17:13.920 --> 0:17:15.959
<v Speaker 1>of the children. It seems like an odd number, not

0:17:16.040 --> 0:17:19.359
<v Speaker 1>ten years, not five, not fifteen, But eleven is what

0:17:19.600 --> 0:17:22.119
<v Speaker 1>was claimed, and that's where there's five years left, and

0:17:22.359 --> 0:17:25.080
<v Speaker 1>where we get the six million a year value from

0:17:25.160 --> 0:17:28.920
<v Speaker 1>by deduction. But it's not specifically explained in the pleadings

0:17:29.040 --> 0:17:34.720
<v Speaker 1>why this alleged oral tenancy was for eleven years. Interestingly,

0:17:35.040 --> 0:17:39.080
<v Speaker 1>she's claiming value of the entire residence, but she didn't

0:17:39.080 --> 0:17:41.800
<v Speaker 1>live there alone. She lived there obviously with him, and

0:17:41.880 --> 0:17:44.879
<v Speaker 1>as we understand it, according to reports, two of his children.

0:17:45.720 --> 0:17:47.720
<v Speaker 1>So arguably, I guess the thirty million could be a

0:17:47.720 --> 0:17:50.399
<v Speaker 1>lot more, a lot less. So the thirty million just

0:17:50.440 --> 0:17:52.159
<v Speaker 1>for her portion of the residence, of course, for the

0:17:52.280 --> 0:17:55.280
<v Speaker 1>entire residence. Yeah, it's unclear whether it's a partial or

0:17:55.320 --> 0:17:59.720
<v Speaker 1>full tendency of the entire estate. According to Zillo, the

0:18:00.000 --> 0:18:03.840
<v Speaker 1>Florida estate is worth forty five point eight million dollars.

0:18:04.200 --> 0:18:07.560
<v Speaker 1>So here's the bigger question, how does a rich person

0:18:08.080 --> 0:18:12.000
<v Speaker 1>get out of a live in relationship? Here? He had

0:18:12.160 --> 0:18:15.600
<v Speaker 1>the NDA so that there would be arbitration. She's trying

0:18:15.600 --> 0:18:18.280
<v Speaker 1>to get around that. So what does a rich person

0:18:18.440 --> 0:18:21.080
<v Speaker 1>do if he or she wants to have a live

0:18:21.119 --> 0:18:26.159
<v Speaker 1>in relationship? Choose very carefully who your partner is. These

0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:30.120
<v Speaker 1>are brand new laws, relatively news. So the first pot,

0:18:30.119 --> 0:18:34.719
<v Speaker 1>the fourced arbitration Law, only became active in March of

0:18:34.960 --> 0:18:38.600
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty two, so it hasn't even been a full year.

0:18:39.000 --> 0:18:43.320
<v Speaker 1>The Speak Out Act, which was passed unanimously in the

0:18:43.400 --> 0:18:46.240
<v Speaker 1>Senate and I think over three hundred and fifty votes

0:18:46.280 --> 0:18:50.159
<v Speaker 1>in the House, that only came into play December, like

0:18:50.280 --> 0:18:53.359
<v Speaker 1>less than four or four months ago. So you know,

0:18:53.520 --> 0:18:57.199
<v Speaker 1>it's going to be interesting the way courts interpret these

0:18:57.480 --> 0:19:02.320
<v Speaker 1>forced arbitration sections and also the validity of these nbas

0:19:02.400 --> 0:19:06.439
<v Speaker 1>when there are even mere allegations of sexual harassment, let

0:19:06.440 --> 0:19:09.359
<v Speaker 1>alone assault. And I'll just say I think also, and

0:19:09.600 --> 0:19:11.720
<v Speaker 1>you know I always think about this in my decades

0:19:11.720 --> 0:19:14.160
<v Speaker 1>and decades of employment law, is that whenever the same

0:19:14.160 --> 0:19:16.399
<v Speaker 1>way when you terminate an employment relationship, you want to

0:19:16.400 --> 0:19:18.240
<v Speaker 1>do it with dignity. You want to do treat someone

0:19:18.240 --> 0:19:20.560
<v Speaker 1>with respect. We don't know exactly what happened here, but

0:19:20.600 --> 0:19:23.919
<v Speaker 1>obviously the allegations of how the relationship ended, and the

0:19:23.960 --> 0:19:26.639
<v Speaker 1>alleged trickery of having a person believe they're going on

0:19:26.680 --> 0:19:28.879
<v Speaker 1>a trip only to find out that that trip is

0:19:28.920 --> 0:19:31.120
<v Speaker 1>not on a nice vacation. It's you know, it's it's

0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:33.199
<v Speaker 1>a permanent removal from from where you're currently you've been,

0:19:33.200 --> 0:19:35.000
<v Speaker 1>where you've been living for the last you know, five

0:19:35.080 --> 0:19:37.200
<v Speaker 1>or six years. I think the way things are done

0:19:37.280 --> 0:19:40.199
<v Speaker 1>also can help, you know, alleviate or try to avoid

0:19:40.240 --> 0:19:42.720
<v Speaker 1>situations where you get into you know, people might take

0:19:42.720 --> 0:19:44.880
<v Speaker 1>things a lot more personally rather than you know, view

0:19:44.880 --> 0:19:47.440
<v Speaker 1>it a little differently. Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:19:47.800 --> 0:19:51.800
<v Speaker 1>That's Dominic Romano and Daniel Braverman of Romano Law. And

0:19:51.880 --> 0:19:54.040
<v Speaker 1>that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

0:19:54.359 --> 0:19:56.639
<v Speaker 1>Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

0:19:56.720 --> 0:19:59.679
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple

0:19:59.720 --> 0:20:04.320
<v Speaker 1>pod Casts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,

0:20:04.320 --> 0:20:07.680
<v Speaker 1>slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into the

0:20:07.680 --> 0:20:11.720
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.

0:20:12.240 --> 0:20:14.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg