1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:12,680
Speaker 1: The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing Elon Musk for

3
00:00:12,720 --> 00:00:16,360
Speaker 1: a third time. This time, the agency says that Musk

4
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:19,599
Speaker 1: cheated Twitter shareholders out of more than one hundred and

5
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:23,599
Speaker 1: fifty million dollars by waiting too long to disclose his

6
00:00:23,760 --> 00:00:27,360
Speaker 1: growing stake in the company as he prepared a takeover

7
00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:31,800
Speaker 1: bid in twenty twenty two. The sec complaint accuses the

8
00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 1: billionaire of failing to promptly report that he had amassed

9
00:00:36,040 --> 00:00:39,839
Speaker 1: more than five percent of the social media platform stock

10
00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:43,640
Speaker 1: in early twenty twenty two, a revelation that would have

11
00:00:43,680 --> 00:00:47,879
Speaker 1: sent the stocks price up quote. Because Musk failed to

12
00:00:48,040 --> 00:00:52,040
Speaker 1: timely disclose his beneficial ownership, he was able to make

13
00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:56,880
Speaker 1: these purchases from the unsuspecting public at artificially low prices.

14
00:00:57,400 --> 00:01:01,360
Speaker 1: A lawyer from Musque disputed the charges, saying the billionaire

15
00:01:01,560 --> 00:01:04,960
Speaker 1: has done nothing wrong and everyone sees this sham for

16
00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:08,600
Speaker 1: what it is. Joining me is securities law expert James Park,

17
00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:11,959
Speaker 1: a professor at UCLA Law School. Jim tell us about

18
00:01:11,959 --> 00:01:14,640
Speaker 1: the SEC's complaint, Well, there.

19
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:18,399
Speaker 2: Was a violation by Elon Musk of Section thirteen d

20
00:01:18,840 --> 00:01:23,080
Speaker 2: of the Securities Exchange Act, which says that any person

21
00:01:23,680 --> 00:01:28,240
Speaker 2: that acquires more than five percent of company shares has

22
00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:33,399
Speaker 2: to file a report with the SEC within ten calendar

23
00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:39,280
Speaker 2: days after crossing that threshold. And simply put, Musk did

24
00:01:39,319 --> 00:01:43,399
Speaker 2: not file that report. And so it's a very clear

25
00:01:43,840 --> 00:01:48,640
Speaker 2: violation of a well established SEC rule. And I suspect

26
00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:52,560
Speaker 2: that the SEC wants to send the signal that this

27
00:01:52,760 --> 00:01:55,640
Speaker 2: is a rule that has to be followed. I think

28
00:01:55,640 --> 00:01:59,000
Speaker 2: that's one explanation as to why the case is being

29
00:01:59,000 --> 00:01:59,520
Speaker 2: brought now.

30
00:02:00,080 --> 00:02:02,240
Speaker 1: As you say, it seems like a simple case, sort

31
00:02:02,240 --> 00:02:06,080
Speaker 1: of cut and dried. SEC started investigating this in twenty

32
00:02:06,120 --> 00:02:08,800
Speaker 1: twenty two. Why did it take so long?

33
00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:13,080
Speaker 2: A very good question. It has been a few years,

34
00:02:13,120 --> 00:02:17,160
Speaker 2: and you know their number of possible explanations. One is that,

35
00:02:17,800 --> 00:02:20,000
Speaker 2: you know, they're busy doing a lot of things. As

36
00:02:20,040 --> 00:02:22,760
Speaker 2: you know, over the last few years, they've been working

37
00:02:22,800 --> 00:02:26,120
Speaker 2: on a lot of various rule proposals. They've brought some

38
00:02:26,320 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 2: very interesting, ambitious enforcement cases. They may simply have been busy.

39
00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:37,400
Speaker 2: Another possibility is that there may have been some debate

40
00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:43,240
Speaker 2: within the SDC about, you know, should the case be

41
00:02:43,320 --> 00:02:48,000
Speaker 2: brought given that you know, We have brought prior cases

42
00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:51,320
Speaker 2: against Elon Musk that have been settled, and they've been

43
00:02:51,400 --> 00:02:56,480
Speaker 2: very high profile. He's been somebody who has vigorously opposed

44
00:02:56,639 --> 00:03:00,399
Speaker 2: the SDC, and maybe the thought as well, we bring

45
00:03:00,440 --> 00:03:05,359
Speaker 2: another case right now. Maybe the perception is that we

46
00:03:05,400 --> 00:03:09,680
Speaker 2: are targeting Elon Musk, And another possibility is maybe there

47
00:03:09,720 --> 00:03:13,280
Speaker 2: was some debate about Okay, there's a violation. You know,

48
00:03:13,320 --> 00:03:17,120
Speaker 2: what exactly is the harm, what exactly is the impact

49
00:03:17,200 --> 00:03:22,239
Speaker 2: on investors. The purpose of the rule when it was

50
00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,000
Speaker 2: originally passed in nineteen sixty eight as part of a

51
00:03:25,080 --> 00:03:29,880
Speaker 2: law called the Williams Acts, was to give the management

52
00:03:29,880 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 2: of a corporation some notice when somebody was interested in

53
00:03:35,520 --> 00:03:39,840
Speaker 2: taking control over the corporation, so that they could react,

54
00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:43,600
Speaker 2: so they might implement various defensive measures to make it

55
00:03:43,680 --> 00:03:48,600
Speaker 2: more difficult for a hostile takeover to succeed. And as

56
00:03:48,640 --> 00:03:54,080
Speaker 2: we know, Elon Musk eventually did successfully acquire Twitter, and

57
00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:56,520
Speaker 2: it was actually forced to do so. At the end.

58
00:03:57,000 --> 00:03:59,600
Speaker 2: He tried to back out and it was forced. You know,

59
00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:03,839
Speaker 2: it be sort of a you know, interesting question as

60
00:04:03,880 --> 00:04:06,200
Speaker 2: to you know, can you argue what we were harmed?

61
00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:08,480
Speaker 2: You know, was the company harmed when at one point

62
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:11,360
Speaker 2: they actually were trying to force Elon Musk to think

63
00:04:11,440 --> 00:04:14,280
Speaker 2: over Twitter, right, And so yeah, I think those are

64
00:04:14,280 --> 00:04:17,440
Speaker 2: all things that, you know, that could have contributed to

65
00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:20,160
Speaker 2: the length of time it took to file the case.

66
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:22,480
Speaker 1: So you don't think that it was sort of a

67
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:27,480
Speaker 1: last contentious kind of act by the outgoing ahead of

68
00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:30,520
Speaker 1: the SEC. Gary Gensler certainly was.

69
00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:34,920
Speaker 2: A last act. And whether this was meant a sort

70
00:04:34,960 --> 00:04:38,360
Speaker 2: of a final you know, let's poke at Elon Musk

71
00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:42,080
Speaker 2: for some political reason. I'm skeptical that that's the reason,

72
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:44,760
Speaker 2: but I do believe, you know, I think this is

73
00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:48,599
Speaker 2: somewhat obvious that you know, maybe there's a concern that

74
00:04:49,520 --> 00:04:52,400
Speaker 2: the next administration may not pursue the case, and we

75
00:04:52,520 --> 00:04:55,720
Speaker 2: believe there's a case here, so we should file it

76
00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:58,680
Speaker 2: while we can't. I think that is certainly a possibility

77
00:04:58,680 --> 00:05:03,400
Speaker 2: that that what happened. And you know, the other possibility is,

78
00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:07,039
Speaker 2: you know, it just took some time to figure out

79
00:05:07,080 --> 00:05:10,520
Speaker 2: all of these issues and come to a decision, and

80
00:05:10,960 --> 00:05:13,360
Speaker 2: they just had more time, you know, in the fall

81
00:05:13,520 --> 00:05:16,919
Speaker 2: or late fall after the election to come to conclusion

82
00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:19,400
Speaker 2: on some of these more difficult issues. That's also a

83
00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:23,640
Speaker 2: very real possibility that the timing was simply that this

84
00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 2: is when they finished their deliberation as to whether or

85
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:27,960
Speaker 2: not to bring the case.

86
00:05:28,560 --> 00:05:33,159
Speaker 1: Musk's lawyer, Alex Spiro, said the agency has waged a

87
00:05:33,279 --> 00:05:37,640
Speaker 1: multi year campaign of harassment against Musk, but filed up

88
00:05:37,720 --> 00:05:42,320
Speaker 1: quote a single count TICKI tack complaint. No, what's your

89
00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:45,560
Speaker 1: reaction to that single count TICKI tack complaint. I'm not

90
00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:46,720
Speaker 1: even sure what that means.

91
00:05:47,080 --> 00:05:49,680
Speaker 2: Well, it's true that it is a single count. It's

92
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:54,400
Speaker 2: a violation of Section thirteen D, no other provisions indicating

93
00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:58,479
Speaker 2: he committed you know, security fraud. There's nothing saying he

94
00:05:58,560 --> 00:06:03,200
Speaker 2: acted with fraudulent intent. Is simply a strict liability violation

95
00:06:03,360 --> 00:06:06,359
Speaker 2: of a very simple rule. You might liken this to

96
00:06:06,640 --> 00:06:10,120
Speaker 2: a speeding ticket, right, You violate the speed limit and

97
00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:12,760
Speaker 2: you get a ticket, and that's that's the law, right,

98
00:06:12,839 --> 00:06:16,039
Speaker 2: And you know the SEC's response is, you know the

99
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:18,440
Speaker 2: laws the law. You know, if I'm taught going over

100
00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:22,080
Speaker 2: sixty five miles per hour, then you get a ticket.

101
00:06:22,520 --> 00:06:25,880
Speaker 2: Now what the defense may say as well, And as

102
00:06:25,880 --> 00:06:29,400
Speaker 2: you know, sometimes you know, the police do not enforce

103
00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:31,440
Speaker 2: the speed limit. And you know, you go a few

104
00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 2: miles over and you know, police officer's busy has better

105
00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:37,640
Speaker 2: things to do. They're not going to write you a ticket,

106
00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:41,120
Speaker 2: and so there might be an argument, well, the SEC

107
00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:44,360
Speaker 2: could have used its discretion not to pursue an enforcement

108
00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:46,960
Speaker 2: and action in this case. I think so that would

109
00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:50,039
Speaker 2: be problematic when you have such a clear violation that's

110
00:06:50,080 --> 00:06:53,920
Speaker 2: been highly publicized, to say we're just going to let

111
00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:57,159
Speaker 2: this go. If you believe that thirteen D matters and

112
00:06:57,279 --> 00:07:01,440
Speaker 2: is important and should be enforced, then you know, I

113
00:07:01,440 --> 00:07:05,160
Speaker 2: think that the SEC would say that this is an

114
00:07:05,200 --> 00:07:09,279
Speaker 2: opportunity to show that this rule is something that we

115
00:07:09,560 --> 00:07:12,880
Speaker 2: treat seriously and you can't just violate it without paying

116
00:07:13,440 --> 00:07:15,640
Speaker 2: a penalty. And I think there's some merit to that

117
00:07:15,760 --> 00:07:19,400
Speaker 2: argument to thirteen D is an important provision. In fact,

118
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:21,920
Speaker 2: there's a huge amount of debate, and there are rules

119
00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:25,320
Speaker 2: that strengthen thirteen D that were passed a year or

120
00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:28,760
Speaker 2: two ago, and there's an argument that this is a

121
00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:32,000
Speaker 2: very significant rule that serves an important purpose, and if

122
00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:35,440
Speaker 2: we let it go unenforced, that's the problem for the SEC.

123
00:07:36,200 --> 00:07:40,200
Speaker 1: Taking that into consideration that it might look bad if

124
00:07:40,240 --> 00:07:45,000
Speaker 1: the SEC drops this case when Trump takes office, but

125
00:07:45,280 --> 00:07:49,000
Speaker 1: also that Elon Musk seems to be Trump's new best buddy.

126
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:51,880
Speaker 1: Do you think there's a hazard in them dropping the case?

127
00:07:53,240 --> 00:07:56,960
Speaker 2: Certainly? I think that, you know, the new SDC, I think,

128
00:07:57,040 --> 00:07:59,280
Speaker 2: will look at a lot of different things as to

129
00:07:59,360 --> 00:08:01,480
Speaker 2: how they pursue the case. I would be surprised if

130
00:08:01,480 --> 00:08:04,840
Speaker 2: they dropped it completely. What they could do is quickly

131
00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:07,920
Speaker 2: allow it to settle for a nominal sum, right. I

132
00:08:07,920 --> 00:08:10,240
Speaker 2: think that's a more likely outcome.

133
00:08:11,200 --> 00:08:13,400
Speaker 3: And you know, there would.

134
00:08:13,400 --> 00:08:17,760
Speaker 2: Potentially be some criticism while you're doing this, because there's

135
00:08:17,840 --> 00:08:21,480
Speaker 2: a sort of political reason why you're letting him go

136
00:08:21,600 --> 00:08:23,320
Speaker 2: with a slap on the wrist. And I think that's

137
00:08:23,320 --> 00:08:26,000
Speaker 2: something that they'll have to keep in mind. And I

138
00:08:26,000 --> 00:08:28,120
Speaker 2: think in addition to that, they will also have to

139
00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:31,720
Speaker 2: consider how important do we think Section thirteen D is

140
00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:34,080
Speaker 2: what kind of message would it spend if if we

141
00:08:34,120 --> 00:08:36,000
Speaker 2: let him go with a slap on the wrist? And

142
00:08:36,040 --> 00:08:39,200
Speaker 2: that's in addition to the question of whether or not

143
00:08:39,280 --> 00:08:44,600
Speaker 2: there's favoritism going on with respect to Elon Musk. And

144
00:08:44,640 --> 00:08:46,000
Speaker 2: you know, I would add that I think, you know,

145
00:08:46,080 --> 00:08:48,000
Speaker 2: part of the reason the SEC might have felt like

146
00:08:48,040 --> 00:08:50,959
Speaker 2: it had to ask is it didn't want to create

147
00:08:51,000 --> 00:08:55,199
Speaker 2: the impression that just because you know, we have an

148
00:08:55,240 --> 00:08:58,560
Speaker 2: individual who has been highly critical of us. You know

149
00:08:58,640 --> 00:09:00,760
Speaker 2: we're not going to be scared it off by that.

150
00:09:01,000 --> 00:09:03,520
Speaker 2: So I would send a bad message as well if

151
00:09:03,520 --> 00:09:07,240
Speaker 2: we simply are intimidated and not you know, bringing cases

152
00:09:07,280 --> 00:09:11,240
Speaker 2: for clear violations against that individual simply because we've brought

153
00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:14,640
Speaker 2: cases against him in the past, and he has used

154
00:09:14,640 --> 00:09:16,520
Speaker 2: this platform to criticize that.

155
00:09:17,080 --> 00:09:20,240
Speaker 1: He certainly has. I've been talking to Professor James Park

156
00:09:20,360 --> 00:09:25,040
Speaker 1: of UCLA Law School about the SEC suing elon Musk,

157
00:09:25,400 --> 00:09:28,400
Speaker 1: saying he cheated Twitter's shareholders out of more than one

158
00:09:28,440 --> 00:09:31,760
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million dollars by waiting too long to

159
00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:35,520
Speaker 1: disclose his growing stake in the company as he prepared

160
00:09:35,600 --> 00:09:41,199
Speaker 1: a takeover bid. Apparently, Musk rejected a settlement offer, and

161
00:09:41,679 --> 00:09:45,160
Speaker 1: reportedly the settlement offer was more than two hundred million

162
00:09:45,240 --> 00:09:48,400
Speaker 1: dollars to settle this. How does that compare to other

163
00:09:48,520 --> 00:09:50,120
Speaker 1: finds under this section.

164
00:09:50,720 --> 00:09:54,560
Speaker 2: It's a large thump. It's a large thumb. And the

165
00:09:54,600 --> 00:10:01,439
Speaker 2: way they would I think justify that is the theory

166
00:10:02,040 --> 00:10:06,080
Speaker 2: is that if he had disclosed in a timely manner,

167
00:10:07,000 --> 00:10:12,240
Speaker 2: the stock price would have gone up because other investors

168
00:10:12,280 --> 00:10:17,960
Speaker 2: know he's interested in buying for some reason, and you

169
00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:21,880
Speaker 2: know the cost of buying those shares might have been

170
00:10:22,160 --> 00:10:27,520
Speaker 2: an additional few hundred million dollars. And so I think

171
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:31,960
Speaker 2: that the SEC's rationale might be that, you know, you

172
00:10:32,040 --> 00:10:35,200
Speaker 2: got a bargain on these shares because anyone else would

173
00:10:35,240 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 2: have filed a Schedule thirteen D with the SCC, the

174
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:41,600
Speaker 2: stock price would have gone up, and you would have

175
00:10:41,640 --> 00:10:45,400
Speaker 2: spent hundreds of millions of dollars more to buy the

176
00:10:45,440 --> 00:10:50,640
Speaker 2: Twitter stocks that you wanted to buy. And so their

177
00:10:50,760 --> 00:10:56,680
Speaker 2: argument is that the shareholders who basically sold their shares

178
00:10:57,120 --> 00:11:01,439
Speaker 2: in the market to Musk were cheated in a sense

179
00:11:01,520 --> 00:11:04,160
Speaker 2: because they were entitled to some disclosure that this is

180
00:11:04,200 --> 00:11:08,720
Speaker 2: going on, and that might have been there their justification

181
00:11:08,960 --> 00:11:12,320
Speaker 2: for what is a fairly you know, it seems like

182
00:11:12,640 --> 00:11:16,120
Speaker 2: a fairly high penalty to me that it's it's probably

183
00:11:16,160 --> 00:11:21,320
Speaker 2: based upon the harm to investors, and so, you know,

184
00:11:21,400 --> 00:11:23,960
Speaker 2: that's the argument that might have been made. Now, on

185
00:11:23,960 --> 00:11:25,440
Speaker 2: the other hand, you might say, well that that's a

186
00:11:25,480 --> 00:11:29,719
Speaker 2: lot for something that you know, is it an intentional violation,

187
00:11:30,200 --> 00:11:33,520
Speaker 2: and that's something where you know, there's some indication that

188
00:11:33,640 --> 00:11:35,920
Speaker 2: at the very least maybe he was reckless and didn't

189
00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:39,400
Speaker 2: care about the rules, and so maybe another argument for

190
00:11:39,440 --> 00:11:42,880
Speaker 2: a higher penalty is that, you know, you need to

191
00:11:42,920 --> 00:11:46,560
Speaker 2: figure out what the law is before you ask. And

192
00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:48,880
Speaker 2: so I think those are the reasons the sec might

193
00:11:49,559 --> 00:11:53,080
Speaker 2: justify a high penalty. Yeah.

194
00:11:53,080 --> 00:11:56,400
Speaker 1: So I read that Alphabet paid seven hundred and fifty

195
00:11:56,440 --> 00:12:00,720
Speaker 1: thousand to settle allegations that it failed to file time reports,

196
00:12:01,200 --> 00:12:05,679
Speaker 1: and that almost two dozen firms and individuals were cited

197
00:12:05,679 --> 00:12:10,120
Speaker 1: in September for not submitting proper reports about their holdings

198
00:12:10,120 --> 00:12:12,960
Speaker 1: and transactions. So it doesn't seem to be out of

199
00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:14,880
Speaker 1: the ordinary.

200
00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:18,800
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are penalties all the time that are imposed.

201
00:12:19,040 --> 00:12:21,800
Speaker 2: You could argue that in this case it's, you know,

202
00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:25,400
Speaker 2: the sheer amount of purchases that have that were made.

203
00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:29,920
Speaker 2: Maybe that might justify an even higher penalty than the

204
00:12:29,920 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 2: ones that were imposed before because of just the market impact.

205
00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:37,640
Speaker 2: I don't know what the market impact of the other

206
00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:41,640
Speaker 2: those other cases were, but you know, given the volume,

207
00:12:41,960 --> 00:12:45,720
Speaker 2: the amount of shares he's buying out in the marketplace,

208
00:12:46,320 --> 00:12:49,280
Speaker 2: there might be an argument that, well, there's more potential

209
00:12:49,440 --> 00:12:54,000
Speaker 2: investor harmer or unjust enrichment by mister Musk that could

210
00:12:54,040 --> 00:12:57,120
Speaker 2: justify an even higher penalty than past penalties the SEC

211
00:12:57,240 --> 00:12:58,680
Speaker 2: has imposed for these cases.

212
00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:02,280
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this, what's your take on Paul Atkins,

213
00:13:02,360 --> 00:13:08,119
Speaker 1: who Trump says he's going to nominate to succeed Gary Gensler.

214
00:13:09,559 --> 00:13:13,240
Speaker 2: He's been a commissioner before, so he knows the SEC.

215
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:18,640
Speaker 2: You know, he certainly has a different approach than mister Gensler,

216
00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:22,360
Speaker 2: and I think it reflects, you know, probably a more

217
00:13:22,559 --> 00:13:26,480
Speaker 2: conservative view with respect to the role of securities law

218
00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:32,520
Speaker 2: and more of a concern for reducing regulatory burdens on

219
00:13:33,160 --> 00:13:38,880
Speaker 2: public corporations and other market participants. He knows securities law,

220
00:13:39,120 --> 00:13:41,040
Speaker 2: he has views on it, and whether or not you

221
00:13:42,040 --> 00:13:46,200
Speaker 2: disagree with those views, I think, you know, he's an

222
00:13:46,240 --> 00:13:50,000
Speaker 2: appropriate choice for the position. And you know, I think

223
00:13:50,080 --> 00:13:53,200
Speaker 2: there's a lot of difficult issues he's going to have

224
00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:56,400
Speaker 2: to grapple with, and I think, you know, crypto regulation

225
00:13:56,600 --> 00:13:57,600
Speaker 2: is one of them.

226
00:13:57,720 --> 00:13:58,719
Speaker 1: And you know, the.

227
00:13:58,679 --> 00:14:02,560
Speaker 2: Third Circuit sent back at the various rules to the

228
00:14:02,640 --> 00:14:05,160
Speaker 2: SEC instead give us a better reason why you're not

229
00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:09,040
Speaker 2: writing rules on crypto and you know that's going to

230
00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:14,040
Speaker 2: be owned by the Atkins SDC whatever essentially comes out

231
00:14:14,080 --> 00:14:18,280
Speaker 2: of that process. And you know, the danger here is

232
00:14:18,320 --> 00:14:22,440
Speaker 2: that if you're perceived as being the regular story and

233
00:14:22,520 --> 00:14:26,400
Speaker 2: something really bad happens, then you know there'll be a

234
00:14:26,440 --> 00:14:29,960
Speaker 2: tendency to kind of put the blame on you. You know,

235
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:32,280
Speaker 2: if there are a lot of crypto losses, for example,

236
00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:35,760
Speaker 2: then everyone's going to be pointing at at the Atkins SDC,

237
00:14:36,200 --> 00:14:38,520
Speaker 2: and so those are things that he's going to have

238
00:14:38,600 --> 00:14:40,720
Speaker 2: to navigate as he enters this job.

239
00:14:40,920 --> 00:14:43,800
Speaker 1: It's always interesting to watch what happens at an agency

240
00:14:43,920 --> 00:14:47,120
Speaker 1: when there's a new administration. Thanks so much, Jim. Always

241
00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:50,800
Speaker 1: a pleasure. That's Professor James Park of UCLA Law School.

242
00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:55,480
Speaker 1: It's one of the most destructive natural disasters in Southern

243
00:14:55,520 --> 00:14:59,960
Speaker 1: California history, killing at least twenty five people and destroying

244
00:15:00,120 --> 00:15:04,440
Speaker 1: thousands of homes, and while crews continue to battle the wildfires,

245
00:15:04,840 --> 00:15:09,520
Speaker 1: the investigation into the cause of the devastating fires is intensifying.

246
00:15:10,040 --> 00:15:13,840
Speaker 1: Atf special age and in charge of the LA Field Division,

247
00:15:14,040 --> 00:15:18,840
Speaker 1: Jose Medina, says they're tackling the investigation from all angles.

248
00:15:19,600 --> 00:15:23,320
Speaker 4: Investigators are looking for remaining fuels and surviving fire patterns,

249
00:15:23,600 --> 00:15:27,800
Speaker 4: as well as fire patterns on non compulstible materials such

250
00:15:27,800 --> 00:15:32,640
Speaker 4: as rocks, cans, bottles, et cetera. We have conducted interviews

251
00:15:32,640 --> 00:15:36,080
Speaker 4: with individuals that initiated the nine one one calls and

252
00:15:36,160 --> 00:15:40,240
Speaker 4: the first responders. We are talking to individuals about not

253
00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:43,640
Speaker 4: just what they saw, but what they smelled and they heard.

254
00:15:44,080 --> 00:15:48,680
Speaker 1: In the meantime, litigation over the fires has begun. Lawsuits

255
00:15:48,680 --> 00:15:53,000
Speaker 1: on behalf of homeowners, renters, business owners, and others have

256
00:15:53,120 --> 00:15:57,040
Speaker 1: been filed against Southern California Edison over the Eton fire

257
00:15:57,440 --> 00:16:00,960
Speaker 1: and against the Los Angeles Department of Water Power over

258
00:16:01,000 --> 00:16:06,560
Speaker 1: the Palisades fire. Edison International Chief executive Officer Pedro Pizarro

259
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:10,920
Speaker 1: told Bloomberg on Monday that the utility didn't detect any

260
00:16:11,040 --> 00:16:15,000
Speaker 1: electrical issues on a transmission line near the start of

261
00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:16,560
Speaker 1: the deadly Eaten fire.

262
00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:19,880
Speaker 5: Certainly, we've seen the video images and photos that are

263
00:16:19,920 --> 00:16:22,120
Speaker 5: in the media that a number of residents have taken

264
00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:28,400
Speaker 5: showing flames near our towers. Today, we have not seen

265
00:16:28,440 --> 00:16:33,240
Speaker 5: in our telemetry any indication of any electrical anomaly. And

266
00:16:33,280 --> 00:16:36,520
Speaker 5: typically when you have a fire costs by electrical infrastructure,

267
00:16:36,560 --> 00:16:40,040
Speaker 5: you do see a signature of voltage rupping, current increasing.

268
00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:42,840
Speaker 5: We have not seen that in our study.

269
00:16:43,120 --> 00:16:46,480
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bernie Bernheim of the Bernheim Law Firm.

270
00:16:47,160 --> 00:16:50,200
Speaker 1: I know you're going to be filing your lawsuits in

271
00:16:50,240 --> 00:16:54,360
Speaker 1: the next few days. What's alleged in the lawsuits filed

272
00:16:54,400 --> 00:16:56,400
Speaker 1: against Southern California Edison.

273
00:16:58,040 --> 00:17:03,320
Speaker 3: They alleged that that the power company for the Eton Fire,

274
00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:07,720
Speaker 3: which is Southern California Edison, their equipment started the fire,

275
00:17:08,440 --> 00:17:12,200
Speaker 3: and that the equipment was negligently maintained and operated.

276
00:17:13,040 --> 00:17:17,600
Speaker 1: So on Monday, Edison CEO Pedro Pizarro tol Bloomberg News

277
00:17:17,960 --> 00:17:22,359
Speaker 1: it didn't detect any operating anomalies on its transmission wires

278
00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:25,320
Speaker 1: in the twelve hours before the fire. What will you

279
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:29,280
Speaker 1: use to make out a case for negligence, Well.

280
00:17:29,040 --> 00:17:33,879
Speaker 3: First of all, there's video of the fire starting under

281
00:17:34,200 --> 00:17:38,320
Speaker 3: their equipment, a giant shadower of spark. Number one, and

282
00:17:38,359 --> 00:17:43,000
Speaker 3: that video is widely available. Number two, there's essentially a

283
00:17:43,119 --> 00:17:48,119
Speaker 3: tracking service that shows when there are namlies in the

284
00:17:48,160 --> 00:17:52,160
Speaker 3: electrical grid, and the average is like two, three or four.

285
00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:56,720
Speaker 3: But it detected over one hundred in the hours before

286
00:17:56,760 --> 00:17:59,560
Speaker 3: the fire, and at that point power should have been

287
00:17:59,560 --> 00:18:03,439
Speaker 3: shut down out and it wasn't. So, you know, with

288
00:18:03,520 --> 00:18:06,800
Speaker 3: all due respect to the CEO of the company, there's

289
00:18:07,280 --> 00:18:12,520
Speaker 3: ample evidence to indicate that you know, they're responsible. Now,

290
00:18:12,840 --> 00:18:15,320
Speaker 3: you know, would like of any lawsuit, there's going to

291
00:18:15,320 --> 00:18:19,040
Speaker 3: be discovery. We are only going on what is publicly

292
00:18:19,160 --> 00:18:23,919
Speaker 3: available right now. But once you know discovery's done, documents

293
00:18:23,920 --> 00:18:27,560
Speaker 3: are obtained, depositions are taken, the actual truth of what

294
00:18:27,680 --> 00:18:31,480
Speaker 3: the curd is going to come out. And if their equipment,

295
00:18:32,320 --> 00:18:35,040
Speaker 3: I mean, the fact that the fire started right under

296
00:18:35,080 --> 00:18:39,360
Speaker 3: their equipment is pretty telling. And what does you say

297
00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:41,240
Speaker 3: caused the fire if there wasn't his equipment.

298
00:18:41,680 --> 00:18:46,359
Speaker 1: California has this unique doctrine that a utility can be

299
00:18:46,440 --> 00:18:51,520
Speaker 1: held liable for property damage when its equipment ignites a fire,

300
00:18:51,920 --> 00:18:55,400
Speaker 1: even if it didn't act negligently. Tell us about that

301
00:18:55,520 --> 00:18:58,400
Speaker 1: doctrine known as inverse condemnation.

302
00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:03,520
Speaker 3: Yes, because there was a taking of property. Is the

303
00:19:03,640 --> 00:19:07,800
Speaker 3: term that's used by a government or quase government entity.

304
00:19:08,800 --> 00:19:11,840
Speaker 3: And you know, there's been sort of a legal debate

305
00:19:12,000 --> 00:19:18,080
Speaker 3: about whether utilities qualify. I mean, most commonly you see

306
00:19:18,160 --> 00:19:22,200
Speaker 3: and there so that they do qualify. But initially an

307
00:19:22,240 --> 00:19:24,920
Speaker 3: earlier fire on the utility spot decided to say that

308
00:19:25,000 --> 00:19:29,800
Speaker 3: we're not a government entity. We're publicly traded company, you know,

309
00:19:30,200 --> 00:19:33,800
Speaker 3: by stocking us. But the courts here in California have

310
00:19:33,920 --> 00:19:39,440
Speaker 3: decided that they qualify as quase government entities against whom

311
00:19:39,640 --> 00:19:45,359
Speaker 3: inverse condemnation can be alleged. But inverse condemnation originates where

312
00:19:45,840 --> 00:19:51,040
Speaker 3: let's say the government, the county, let's say, says it's

313
00:19:51,040 --> 00:19:55,720
Speaker 3: safe to build a certain area okay, and you know,

314
00:19:55,760 --> 00:19:58,840
Speaker 3: you get your permit and everything, and then that it

315
00:19:58,920 --> 00:20:02,120
Speaker 3: turns out that it doesn't build. There's a big mud

316
00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:06,119
Speaker 3: slide and all of the you know, the houses. But

317
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:09,240
Speaker 3: the government or the county, let's say the city said

318
00:20:09,240 --> 00:20:14,960
Speaker 3: we're okay to build on slide into the into the ocean, right, well,

319
00:20:15,200 --> 00:20:20,359
Speaker 3: they basically condemned the property. And an aversion of it

320
00:20:20,400 --> 00:20:24,159
Speaker 3: comes when the government takes property, like to build a

321
00:20:24,280 --> 00:20:28,919
Speaker 3: highway or something. That's the underlying principle where then if

322
00:20:28,920 --> 00:20:32,040
Speaker 3: they're going to take your property build a highway, they

323
00:20:32,040 --> 00:20:35,720
Speaker 3: have to give you a fair compensation for that taking.

324
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:39,359
Speaker 3: That's where it originates from. And then it's kind of

325
00:20:39,480 --> 00:20:46,160
Speaker 3: it becomes a taking when they when when they when

326
00:20:46,160 --> 00:20:49,040
Speaker 3: they create conditions, but what you with your problem? They

327
00:20:49,080 --> 00:20:51,280
Speaker 3: create conditions, but what you with your problem?

328
00:20:51,920 --> 00:20:56,399
Speaker 1: The CEO on Bloomberg said that California has in place

329
00:20:56,560 --> 00:21:00,800
Speaker 1: this provision that allows a utility to remain financially healthy

330
00:21:01,119 --> 00:21:05,080
Speaker 1: even if it's found libel for the wildfire, including a

331
00:21:05,119 --> 00:21:08,720
Speaker 1: twenty one billion dollar fire insurance fund that caps the

332
00:21:08,760 --> 00:21:13,560
Speaker 1: company's exposure at three point nine billion. Suppose the claims

333
00:21:13,680 --> 00:21:16,920
Speaker 1: exceed twenty one billion, what happens then?

334
00:21:17,600 --> 00:21:20,480
Speaker 3: I don't know. That has never been an issue before.

335
00:21:20,440 --> 00:21:24,679
Speaker 1: Because some of the estimates for this fire are well above.

336
00:21:25,240 --> 00:21:27,400
Speaker 3: Yeah, we don't know. It's uncharted territory.

337
00:21:28,160 --> 00:21:33,560
Speaker 1: What kind of damages would you be seeking in these cases?

338
00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:40,480
Speaker 3: Well, there are damages for the damage to the property,

339
00:21:40,720 --> 00:21:46,480
Speaker 3: the real property, there's damage to the personal property. There

340
00:21:46,640 --> 00:21:52,720
Speaker 3: is additional living expenses that people infer when they have

341
00:21:52,880 --> 00:22:01,280
Speaker 3: to lead. There is also physical injury that can occur,

342
00:22:01,840 --> 00:22:03,960
Speaker 3: sometimes not just because you're burned, but you know, we've

343
00:22:04,000 --> 00:22:07,879
Speaker 3: had children and other fires who develop asthma and so forth.

344
00:22:09,280 --> 00:22:14,359
Speaker 3: We they're psychological injury. You could call it emotional distress.

345
00:22:14,680 --> 00:22:19,040
Speaker 3: There's also the annoyance and other aggravation that comes from

346
00:22:19,119 --> 00:22:27,960
Speaker 3: the rebuilding process and loss of use. There is often

347
00:22:28,320 --> 00:22:34,280
Speaker 3: business loss associated with it. Sometimes it's because literally a

348
00:22:34,359 --> 00:22:39,080
Speaker 3: business was damaged or destroyed. For example, when we did

349
00:22:39,080 --> 00:22:42,840
Speaker 3: the last Malibu fire, a big one, we had quite

350
00:22:42,840 --> 00:22:48,760
Speaker 3: a few of the rehabilitation drug rehabilitation centers that had

351
00:22:48,960 --> 00:22:53,639
Speaker 3: business laws or we've represented owners of gas stations and

352
00:22:53,840 --> 00:22:57,600
Speaker 3: car washes, all kinds of jewelry stores, all sorts of businesses.

353
00:22:58,400 --> 00:23:03,119
Speaker 3: And then and you also have we've also represented clients

354
00:23:03,119 --> 00:23:09,600
Speaker 3: who had home businesses operating sometimes very substantial home businesses

355
00:23:10,480 --> 00:23:14,400
Speaker 3: with millions of dollars of loss, especially now a lot

356
00:23:14,400 --> 00:23:18,440
Speaker 3: of people combining their home and their business. There's also

357
00:23:18,600 --> 00:23:23,400
Speaker 3: interest loss of use of money, which we generally recover

358
00:23:23,480 --> 00:23:27,800
Speaker 3: at an arab of seven percent inplement. And there's also

359
00:23:27,840 --> 00:23:30,920
Speaker 3: be attornitees and expenses of litigation.

360
00:23:31,400 --> 00:23:36,159
Speaker 1: And how long do these cases generally take to litigate.

361
00:23:37,440 --> 00:23:38,080
Speaker 3: Years.

362
00:23:38,840 --> 00:23:42,639
Speaker 1: Also, property owners in the Pacific Palisades are suing the

363
00:23:42,680 --> 00:23:46,199
Speaker 1: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, claiming that a

364
00:23:46,240 --> 00:23:50,119
Speaker 1: reservoir that had been drained and not repaired, couple with

365
00:23:50,240 --> 00:23:55,359
Speaker 1: inadequate water pressure in fire hydrants, undercut efforts by firefighters

366
00:23:55,680 --> 00:23:59,399
Speaker 1: and ultimately allowed the fire to spread out of control.

367
00:24:00,080 --> 00:24:04,760
Speaker 1: Alleges that the utilities negligence turned homeowners to homeless in

368
00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:08,840
Speaker 1: a matter of hours. Is that lawsuit tougher to litigate

369
00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:10,680
Speaker 1: than the one against Addison?

370
00:24:11,320 --> 00:24:14,360
Speaker 3: Yes, And that's being done in connection with the Palisades

371
00:24:14,400 --> 00:24:19,040
Speaker 3: fire with slow runs up down the Pacific Coast Highway.

372
00:24:19,960 --> 00:24:23,360
Speaker 3: And the reason that the lawyers filed that, and we're

373
00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:27,080
Speaker 3: still investigating and deciding what the viability of that is,

374
00:24:28,560 --> 00:24:31,760
Speaker 3: is because there was not a power company to sue.

375
00:24:31,920 --> 00:24:35,000
Speaker 3: In other words, there's no evidence so far that a

376
00:24:35,160 --> 00:24:39,840
Speaker 3: viable you know, private dependent or pause a public defendent

377
00:24:40,400 --> 00:24:46,040
Speaker 3: or potentially a deep pocket defending caused that fire. So

378
00:24:46,160 --> 00:24:48,920
Speaker 3: what at least one law firm has decided to do

379
00:24:49,560 --> 00:24:54,800
Speaker 3: is exactly what you said, sue over the mismanagement of

380
00:24:54,840 --> 00:25:00,480
Speaker 3: a particular reservoir that wasn't available. And one of the

381
00:25:00,480 --> 00:25:02,639
Speaker 3: things I know that's being an alleged there in connection

382
00:25:02,680 --> 00:25:05,520
Speaker 3: with the Power States fire is that not only wasn't

383
00:25:05,560 --> 00:25:10,520
Speaker 3: there sufficient water, but they did not inform the fire company,

384
00:25:11,480 --> 00:25:16,200
Speaker 3: excuse me, the fire department that certain I guess you

385
00:25:16,240 --> 00:25:20,840
Speaker 3: would call the cisterns or reserves of water were empty

386
00:25:21,560 --> 00:25:25,199
Speaker 3: when they should have been filled. But there's an issue

387
00:25:25,240 --> 00:25:30,399
Speaker 3: there of immunity, sovereign immunity, because there are statutes that

388
00:25:30,440 --> 00:25:33,199
Speaker 3: they are asserted by the city, by the Department of

389
00:25:33,240 --> 00:25:37,199
Speaker 3: Water and Power, that provide immunity for these kinds of decisions.

390
00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:41,600
Speaker 3: You can't sue them now Just because you know, immunity

391
00:25:41,760 --> 00:25:46,280
Speaker 3: is available as an affirmative defense to the city does

392
00:25:46,320 --> 00:25:50,520
Speaker 3: not necessarily mean that the city will assert that. Any

393
00:25:50,560 --> 00:25:53,199
Speaker 3: One could say, well, why on earth wouldn't they assert

394
00:25:53,280 --> 00:25:57,040
Speaker 3: that community right? I mean, that goes the case out

395
00:25:57,080 --> 00:26:02,320
Speaker 3: of court. But remember there's a political social component to this.

396
00:26:03,359 --> 00:26:06,679
Speaker 3: Many of the victims of the Palistates fire do not

397
00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:10,760
Speaker 3: have insurance is being sure pulled out of California not

398
00:26:10,840 --> 00:26:15,000
Speaker 3: long ago like State Farmer many did. Or they're very underinsured.

399
00:26:15,480 --> 00:26:18,919
Speaker 3: So you have people that if they cannot sue the city,

400
00:26:19,359 --> 00:26:23,439
Speaker 3: they have very little redress. I mean, whatever little FEMA

401
00:26:23,520 --> 00:26:26,840
Speaker 3: aid or SBA loan aide you're going to get, and

402
00:26:27,200 --> 00:26:30,040
Speaker 3: you know, they could go out into the streets with

403
00:26:30,119 --> 00:26:33,000
Speaker 3: pitchforks and it might look very bad to the city

404
00:26:33,080 --> 00:26:35,560
Speaker 3: if the city said, well, you know, we can't really

405
00:26:35,560 --> 00:26:39,280
Speaker 3: refute that we were negligent, but we do have this

406
00:26:39,359 --> 00:26:42,000
Speaker 3: immunity and we're going to we're going to hide behind

407
00:26:42,040 --> 00:26:45,240
Speaker 3: this shield. And that could result in you know, the

408
00:26:45,240 --> 00:26:49,119
Speaker 3: whole city council and you know, the mayor and everybody

409
00:26:49,160 --> 00:26:53,560
Speaker 3: being thrown out. And they may decide I'm not a politician,

410
00:26:53,640 --> 00:26:58,119
Speaker 3: but they may decide that it's better for us to

411
00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:00,800
Speaker 3: pay at least something into this than just to take

412
00:27:00,800 --> 00:27:04,679
Speaker 3: the position. Nin nin or Nina. You can't sue us

413
00:27:04,760 --> 00:27:05,959
Speaker 3: even though we screwed up.

414
00:27:06,480 --> 00:27:09,040
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being on the show. That's Bernie

415
00:27:09,040 --> 00:27:12,200
Speaker 1: Bernheim of the Bernheim Law Firm, and that's it for

416
00:27:12,240 --> 00:27:14,879
Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

417
00:27:14,920 --> 00:27:18,159
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

418
00:27:18,440 --> 00:27:21,440
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

419
00:27:21,600 --> 00:27:26,639
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law, And

420
00:27:26,720 --> 00:27:29,760
Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

421
00:27:29,880 --> 00:27:33,320
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

422
00:27:33,359 --> 00:27:34,840
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg