1
00:00:02,880 --> 00:00:10,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:12,160 --> 00:00:17,480
Speaker 2: Luigi Mangioni railed about double jeopardy during an unusual courtroom

3
00:00:17,640 --> 00:00:21,480
Speaker 2: outburst after a judge set his state trial for June

4
00:00:21,520 --> 00:00:25,759
Speaker 2: eighth leapfrogging and October trial date set by a judge

5
00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:30,360
Speaker 2: for his federal trial. Mangioni's defense team objected to the

6
00:00:30,480 --> 00:00:33,239
Speaker 2: June date, saying they won't be ready in time and

7
00:00:33,280 --> 00:00:36,720
Speaker 2: that their client faces a threat of double jeopardy. As

8
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:41,680
Speaker 2: court officers led him from the courtroom, Mangioni shouted, it's

9
00:00:41,720 --> 00:00:46,239
Speaker 2: the same trial twice. One plus one equals two. This

10
00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:51,280
Speaker 2: is double jeopardy by any common sense definition. Mangioni is

11
00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:55,560
Speaker 2: charged with killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a

12
00:00:55,560 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 2: Manhattan sidewalk in December of twenty twenty four. Both the

13
00:00:59,520 --> 00:01:03,400
Speaker 2: state and the federal government are trying him for Thompson's killing.

14
00:01:03,800 --> 00:01:07,120
Speaker 2: His lawyers have pushed for the federal trial to go first,

15
00:01:07,400 --> 00:01:10,920
Speaker 2: which could bar the state trial from happening because of

16
00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:16,880
Speaker 2: New York's double jeopardy protections. At Friday's hearing, Mangioni's defense attorney,

17
00:01:17,240 --> 00:01:22,039
Speaker 2: Karen Friedman Agnifilo repeatedly said the June trial day places

18
00:01:22,080 --> 00:01:26,000
Speaker 2: an unfair burden on Mangioni's team to prepare for the

19
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:29,840
Speaker 2: federal and state trials at the same time. Quote, mister

20
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:34,200
Speaker 2: Mangioni is being put in an untenable situation because of

21
00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:38,839
Speaker 2: this tug of war between two different prosecution offices. Judge

22
00:01:38,840 --> 00:01:42,360
Speaker 2: Gregory Carrow's response was, be ready on June eighth.

23
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:43,160
Speaker 1: That's it.

24
00:01:43,959 --> 00:01:49,040
Speaker 2: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David voriachis so, David, basically,

25
00:01:49,440 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 2: Manhattan prosecutors are fighting with federal prosecutors over who gets

26
00:01:54,800 --> 00:01:56,200
Speaker 2: to try Mangoni first.

27
00:01:56,480 --> 00:02:02,000
Speaker 3: That's correct. The judge in the federal case ruled that

28
00:02:03,280 --> 00:02:06,760
Speaker 3: Mangione could not be tried on a murder count that

29
00:02:06,880 --> 00:02:09,200
Speaker 3: could lead to the death penalty, which is what the

30
00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:12,680
Speaker 3: Trump administration was looking for now. This would be the

31
00:02:12,680 --> 00:02:15,880
Speaker 3: death penalty if the jury found him guilty and then

32
00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:19,520
Speaker 3: the jury then decided that he should be put to death.

33
00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:24,640
Speaker 3: She took that option off the table for legal reasons,

34
00:02:24,680 --> 00:02:29,120
Speaker 3: saying that essentially the underlying charge or the related charge

35
00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:34,200
Speaker 3: of stalking with the intent to kill, was not the

36
00:02:34,280 --> 00:02:38,840
Speaker 3: appropriate one to use with this murder count, So she

37
00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:43,000
Speaker 3: dismissed the murder count and a firearms offense, but left

38
00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:46,800
Speaker 3: the stalking charges, and there are two stalking charges for Mangeon,

39
00:02:47,240 --> 00:02:50,960
Speaker 3: who still could face life in prison if he's convicted

40
00:02:51,000 --> 00:02:55,920
Speaker 3: of those. The judge set a September eighth date to

41
00:02:56,080 --> 00:03:02,560
Speaker 3: begin jury selection in that case, unless the prosecutors appeal

42
00:03:02,639 --> 00:03:07,079
Speaker 3: her ruling, and it's not clear that they will. Meanwhile,

43
00:03:07,600 --> 00:03:11,440
Speaker 3: just last week, the judge in the state case, who

44
00:03:11,560 --> 00:03:14,760
Speaker 3: had previously thrown out a first degree murder charge and

45
00:03:15,520 --> 00:03:19,200
Speaker 3: left in place the second degree murder charge, set a

46
00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:24,720
Speaker 3: June eighth trial date for Mangione, and he said that

47
00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:29,480
Speaker 3: he would move that to September eighth if the federal

48
00:03:29,520 --> 00:03:30,600
Speaker 3: prosecutors appeal.

49
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:33,640
Speaker 2: I thought long ago the Feds had said that they

50
00:03:33,639 --> 00:03:38,600
Speaker 2: would let the state go first, and Judge Caar noted quote,

51
00:03:38,720 --> 00:03:42,080
Speaker 2: it appears the federal government has renegged on its agreement

52
00:03:42,160 --> 00:03:44,680
Speaker 2: to let the state, which has done most of the

53
00:03:44,720 --> 00:03:46,800
Speaker 2: work in this case, go first.

54
00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:51,400
Speaker 3: There has been discussion of an agreement. It's just a

55
00:03:51,400 --> 00:03:55,360
Speaker 3: little unclear how that agreement was supposed to be enforced.

56
00:03:55,920 --> 00:03:59,040
Speaker 3: And the judge in the federal case went ahead and

57
00:03:59,120 --> 00:04:02,840
Speaker 3: set a September trial date because the judge in the

58
00:04:02,880 --> 00:04:08,680
Speaker 3: state case had not acted, and there was a very

59
00:04:09,240 --> 00:04:15,760
Speaker 3: intense hearing on Friday, after which Mangione was shackled and

60
00:04:15,840 --> 00:04:19,720
Speaker 3: being let out of court, and he turned and shouted

61
00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:23,039
Speaker 3: to the gallery, it's the same trial. Twice one plus

62
00:04:23,160 --> 00:04:28,240
Speaker 3: one is too double jeopardy by any common sense definition. Now,

63
00:04:28,240 --> 00:04:31,479
Speaker 3: this is not a normal turn of events where the

64
00:04:31,520 --> 00:04:36,280
Speaker 3: defendant would make such a pronouncement to the gallery. What

65
00:04:36,400 --> 00:04:41,320
Speaker 3: he's referring to is that his lawyers have argued consistently

66
00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:46,760
Speaker 3: that by charging him for the same act, the allegation

67
00:04:46,960 --> 00:04:51,600
Speaker 3: is that he murdered United Health Group executive Brian Thompson,

68
00:04:52,279 --> 00:04:55,520
Speaker 3: by charging him twice for the same act, that that

69
00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:58,320
Speaker 3: amounts to double jeopardy, which is barred in the US

70
00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:02,120
Speaker 3: Constitution and under New York state law. So there's been

71
00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:07,599
Speaker 3: a lot of jockeying between federal and state prosecutors to

72
00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:09,560
Speaker 3: see who was going to go first.

73
00:05:10,160 --> 00:05:13,039
Speaker 2: Isn't it accepted that it's two different sovereigns and you

74
00:05:13,040 --> 00:05:15,719
Speaker 2: can try a person in state court and federal court.

75
00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:20,720
Speaker 3: I think it's unclear how the facts of this case

76
00:05:20,760 --> 00:05:23,680
Speaker 3: will play out and how the law will play out

77
00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:29,720
Speaker 3: in this case. There's clearly competition, and you could imagine that, say,

78
00:05:29,760 --> 00:05:33,719
Speaker 3: the judges or the prosecutors would get together and resolve this.

79
00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:38,680
Speaker 3: But this seems to be proceeding not in an amicable fashion.

80
00:05:39,080 --> 00:05:41,479
Speaker 2: If you look at it without all the publicity, it

81
00:05:41,560 --> 00:05:44,640
Speaker 2: seems to be a classic state case. It's a killing

82
00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:45,960
Speaker 2: on the streets of Manhattan.

83
00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:49,640
Speaker 3: It is more traditionally a state prosecution. And the judge

84
00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:52,640
Speaker 3: said that, the State Court judge said that on Friday,

85
00:05:52,720 --> 00:05:55,120
Speaker 3: that this is more traditionally something that would go on.

86
00:05:55,560 --> 00:06:00,200
Speaker 3: And that's something that the prosecutors for Manhattan District Attorney

87
00:06:00,200 --> 00:06:04,440
Speaker 3: Alvin Bragg have been arguing all along. That they investigated

88
00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:08,600
Speaker 3: this case with the New York Police Department, and they

89
00:06:08,640 --> 00:06:12,120
Speaker 3: collected all the evidence and put out the bulletins that

90
00:06:12,279 --> 00:06:19,200
Speaker 3: led to Mengione's arrest in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and that the

91
00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:23,640
Speaker 3: Justice Department, the federal government only got involved essentially after

92
00:06:24,440 --> 00:06:27,960
Speaker 3: the New York Police Department and the Manhattan DIA had

93
00:06:27,960 --> 00:06:30,880
Speaker 3: done the bulk of their investigation. And if your work

94
00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:35,320
Speaker 3: all the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, said that the Justice

95
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:40,200
Speaker 3: Department was going to seek the death penalty before the

96
00:06:40,240 --> 00:06:45,960
Speaker 3: Southern District of New York prosecutors had secured a federal indictment.

97
00:06:46,960 --> 00:06:50,120
Speaker 2: And Bondi was criticized for making that decision before she

98
00:06:50,839 --> 00:06:53,920
Speaker 2: even knew the facts of the case. Why does each

99
00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:57,520
Speaker 2: side want to go first? Is there a concern perhaps

100
00:06:57,560 --> 00:07:01,960
Speaker 2: that the argument of double JAF will come up after

101
00:07:02,000 --> 00:07:05,839
Speaker 2: the verdict in a first trial, and also perhaps that

102
00:07:05,920 --> 00:07:09,520
Speaker 2: a second trial is less of a surprise for the defense,

103
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:11,840
Speaker 2: so they may have an advantage.

104
00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:15,840
Speaker 3: It's not entirely clear why it's so important to each

105
00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:20,360
Speaker 3: side to go first. I mean, I assume for publicity value,

106
00:07:20,600 --> 00:07:24,200
Speaker 3: and you know, the evidence is fresher, the witnesses are fresher.

107
00:07:24,680 --> 00:07:27,400
Speaker 3: As you suggest, the defense might have a better shot

108
00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:31,560
Speaker 3: the second time around. But say, if Mangione is convicted

109
00:07:32,120 --> 00:07:36,160
Speaker 3: and faces a life sentence, it's not entirely clear that

110
00:07:36,600 --> 00:07:38,800
Speaker 3: he would want to go through that a second time.

111
00:07:39,800 --> 00:07:43,480
Speaker 3: I mean, you could imagine that that might give leverage

112
00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:46,640
Speaker 3: for a plea deal, averting a second trial.

113
00:07:47,320 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 2: Key evidence in the case was found in Mangione's backpack

114
00:07:51,720 --> 00:07:56,320
Speaker 2: that was searched at that McDonald's in Pennsylvania where he

115
00:07:56,440 --> 00:07:59,280
Speaker 2: was arrested, and the defense has been fighting to keep

116
00:07:59,320 --> 00:08:02,640
Speaker 2: that evidence out of the trial, arguing it was an

117
00:08:02,640 --> 00:08:07,840
Speaker 2: illegal search, but the state judge, Judge Caro, is not

118
00:08:07,920 --> 00:08:11,600
Speaker 2: going to issue a ruling on whether that critical evidence

119
00:08:11,800 --> 00:08:16,320
Speaker 2: is in or out until May eighteenth, when he set

120
00:08:16,360 --> 00:08:18,680
Speaker 2: the trial date for June eighth.

121
00:08:19,320 --> 00:08:21,880
Speaker 3: The state court judge is going to rule in May,

122
00:08:22,040 --> 00:08:26,360
Speaker 3: which is almost six months after he had a seven

123
00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:31,320
Speaker 3: day hearing on the matter, whereas the federal judge had

124
00:08:31,360 --> 00:08:35,040
Speaker 3: a single hearing with one witness on it and ruled

125
00:08:35,120 --> 00:08:41,040
Speaker 3: promptly that the evidence collected in Luigi Mangione's backpack in

126
00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:45,200
Speaker 3: a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania was admissible in the federal trial.

127
00:08:45,640 --> 00:08:49,720
Speaker 3: So she ruled against the defense request to throw out

128
00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:54,920
Speaker 3: that evidence, which if it's admitted, is, according to the

129
00:08:54,920 --> 00:08:59,160
Speaker 3: New York authorities, very damning. It includes what they say

130
00:08:59,679 --> 00:09:03,000
Speaker 3: was the gun that was used to murder Thompson. It

131
00:09:03,120 --> 00:09:08,280
Speaker 3: includes a silencer, a gun magazine, and a diary that

132
00:09:08,480 --> 00:09:13,560
Speaker 3: authorities say included a number of writings suggesting that Mancione

133
00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:16,880
Speaker 3: was planning to murder Brian Thompson.

134
00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:21,640
Speaker 2: This sort of illustrates the differences between practicing in state

135
00:09:21,679 --> 00:09:27,360
Speaker 2: court and federal court. First Brand's founder Patrick James and

136
00:09:27,440 --> 00:09:31,800
Speaker 2: his brother Edward pleaded not guilty to front charges stemming

137
00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:35,400
Speaker 2: from the multi billion dollar collapse of their auto parts

138
00:09:35,440 --> 00:09:39,280
Speaker 2: supply business. Prosecutors say that as a result of the

139
00:09:39,280 --> 00:09:43,840
Speaker 2: defrauding of the company's lenders and financing partners, hundreds of

140
00:09:43,840 --> 00:09:47,920
Speaker 2: millions of dollars flowed into the personal accounts of Patrick James.

141
00:09:48,480 --> 00:09:53,360
Speaker 2: Federal prosecutors alleged the two former First Brands executives used

142
00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:57,840
Speaker 2: fake and inflated invoices to persuade lenders to provide billions

143
00:09:57,840 --> 00:10:01,480
Speaker 2: of dollars in financing to the company. Jay Clayton, the

144
00:10:01,600 --> 00:10:04,440
Speaker 2: US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said

145
00:10:04,840 --> 00:10:09,040
Speaker 2: the James brothers obtained billions for First Brands and millions

146
00:10:09,040 --> 00:10:12,719
Speaker 2: for themselves by presenting their lenders with the impression of

147
00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:16,960
Speaker 2: a successful, growing international business. He said it was a

148
00:10:17,000 --> 00:10:21,960
Speaker 2: business run through fraud, fake documents, and false financials. The

149
00:10:22,040 --> 00:10:26,319
Speaker 2: indictment follows separate civil lawsuits brought against the brothers by

150
00:10:26,440 --> 00:10:31,079
Speaker 2: First Brand's bankruptcy advisors. The company filed for Chapter eleven

151
00:10:31,160 --> 00:10:35,120
Speaker 2: bankruptcy in September of last year with just twelve million

152
00:10:35,200 --> 00:10:38,640
Speaker 2: dollars in its corporate accounts and more than nine billion

153
00:10:38,880 --> 00:10:42,600
Speaker 2: in liabilities. I've been talking to Bloomberg Legal reporter David

154
00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:45,200
Speaker 2: Voriakis tell us about the charges.

155
00:10:45,280 --> 00:10:48,840
Speaker 3: David Patrick James was the founder of First Brands, which

156
00:10:48,920 --> 00:10:52,720
Speaker 3: is a big auto parts supply business that filed for

157
00:10:52,800 --> 00:10:57,240
Speaker 3: bankruptcy last year, and the allegations are that he and

158
00:10:57,440 --> 00:11:01,400
Speaker 3: his brother, who was a top executive, engaged in a

159
00:11:01,640 --> 00:11:08,079
Speaker 3: massive fraud scheme regarding the financing of billions of dollars

160
00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:13,920
Speaker 3: to the company. And they were indicted on charges including wirefraud,

161
00:11:14,000 --> 00:11:17,599
Speaker 3: bank fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to

162
00:11:17,600 --> 00:11:18,560
Speaker 3: commit money laundering.

163
00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:24,439
Speaker 2: And explain how prosecutors say they committed these frauds.

164
00:11:25,280 --> 00:11:32,800
Speaker 3: They are accused of essentially creating false invoices, using fake

165
00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:38,400
Speaker 3: and inflated invoices to persuade lenders to give them financing

166
00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 3: that they needed to keep their business going. And you know,

167
00:11:42,920 --> 00:11:47,360
Speaker 3: there's allegations of round trip financing, and a lot of

168
00:11:47,400 --> 00:11:52,600
Speaker 3: this has already been aired and litigated in bankruptcy court.

169
00:11:53,160 --> 00:11:56,400
Speaker 3: The prosecutors in the Southern District of New York say

170
00:11:56,480 --> 00:12:00,720
Speaker 3: that it amounted to a criminal scheme. Of course, the

171
00:12:00,760 --> 00:12:05,559
Speaker 3: brothers have pleaded not guilty and to their lawyers deny wrongdoing.

172
00:12:06,280 --> 00:12:11,880
Speaker 3: The prosecutors have also secured the guilty plea and cooperation

173
00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:18,040
Speaker 3: of a big executive, Peter Brumberg's who pleaded guilty under seal,

174
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:23,200
Speaker 3: and we'll be testifying at a trial that's scheduled to

175
00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:24,720
Speaker 3: begin on July thirteenth.

176
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:28,760
Speaker 2: And prosecutors say that they have recordings.

177
00:12:28,640 --> 00:12:31,720
Speaker 3: They have consensual recordings. They said that in a hearing,

178
00:12:32,320 --> 00:12:35,560
Speaker 3: But the nature of those recordings and who's on them

179
00:12:35,600 --> 00:12:37,400
Speaker 3: is unclear at the moment.

180
00:12:37,880 --> 00:12:41,320
Speaker 2: So most of this was litigated or brought up in

181
00:12:41,400 --> 00:12:44,280
Speaker 2: bankruptcy court. What did they find in bankruptcy court?

182
00:12:45,040 --> 00:12:49,040
Speaker 3: There was a great deal of money that essentially went

183
00:12:49,320 --> 00:12:54,280
Speaker 3: missing according to creditors. There's one lawsuit that accuses Patrick

184
00:12:54,400 --> 00:12:59,480
Speaker 3: James of misappropriating more than seven hundred million between twenty

185
00:12:59,520 --> 00:13:04,280
Speaker 3: eighteen in last September, and they say that that helped

186
00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:08,600
Speaker 3: James and his family live their lavish lifestyle. James of

187
00:13:08,640 --> 00:13:13,840
Speaker 3: course denies that. And essentially their defense is that they

188
00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:19,840
Speaker 3: were that they were the victims of self interested, sophisticated

189
00:13:20,040 --> 00:13:25,959
Speaker 3: institutions that placed what they said were patently absurd interest

190
00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:28,439
Speaker 3: rates and fees on their borrowings.

191
00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:32,800
Speaker 2: So they are accusing the lenders of engaging in predatory practices.

192
00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:35,720
Speaker 2: Are they also claiming that the tariffs played a part

193
00:13:35,720 --> 00:13:35,960
Speaker 2: in this.

194
00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:40,720
Speaker 3: They do blame the tariffs a bit too. That was

195
00:13:40,760 --> 00:13:45,920
Speaker 3: a factor that changed the business environment that helped lead

196
00:13:45,960 --> 00:13:47,360
Speaker 3: to their bankruptcy.

197
00:13:47,440 --> 00:13:49,080
Speaker 2: How much money do they have now.

198
00:13:49,120 --> 00:13:54,120
Speaker 3: It's unclear, many millions of dollars now. Patrick James is

199
00:13:54,160 --> 00:13:58,120
Speaker 3: free on a fifty million dollar bond and Edward James

200
00:13:58,200 --> 00:14:01,000
Speaker 3: is free on a twenty five million dollar bond, and

201
00:14:01,040 --> 00:14:03,640
Speaker 3: they had put up a portion of that in cash

202
00:14:03,720 --> 00:14:07,880
Speaker 3: and also post properties to secure their bond. So this

203
00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:10,480
Speaker 3: is a big part of the bankruptcy litigation is just

204
00:14:10,559 --> 00:14:14,600
Speaker 3: how much money do they have and how much were

205
00:14:14,679 --> 00:14:20,040
Speaker 3: they paid through the companies. It's a private company that

206
00:14:20,760 --> 00:14:26,680
Speaker 3: Patrick James owns, and so the accounting is not quite

207
00:14:26,760 --> 00:14:29,320
Speaker 3: as transparent as if it had been a public company.

208
00:14:29,960 --> 00:14:34,160
Speaker 2: And the penalties are pretty stiff here if they're convicted.

209
00:14:34,800 --> 00:14:40,200
Speaker 3: Yes, I believe it's life in prison for Patrick James.

210
00:14:40,360 --> 00:14:43,520
Speaker 3: And you know, as with all of these financial frauds

211
00:14:43,760 --> 00:14:48,040
Speaker 3: that involve wire fraud and bank fraud, it's potentially dozens

212
00:14:48,040 --> 00:14:52,400
Speaker 3: of years in prison. Typically, why collar executives receive far

213
00:14:52,480 --> 00:14:54,600
Speaker 3: less than that. But I mean, they're looking at very

214
00:14:54,640 --> 00:14:56,800
Speaker 3: serious time if they're convicted in this case.

215
00:14:57,560 --> 00:15:02,360
Speaker 2: So trial is set for July third. I imagine that's

216
00:15:02,400 --> 00:15:07,840
Speaker 2: going to be a very complicated trial with lots of documents.

217
00:15:07,920 --> 00:15:10,240
Speaker 2: Do you know how long the trial is expected to take.

218
00:15:11,240 --> 00:15:15,200
Speaker 3: Well, it's a complex financial fraud, and I don't think

219
00:15:16,120 --> 00:15:19,440
Speaker 3: the prosecutors have yet said how long they need to

220
00:15:19,480 --> 00:15:23,880
Speaker 3: present their case, but I would imagine if it's anything

221
00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:28,280
Speaker 3: like similar cases, it would be several weeks. And so

222
00:15:28,480 --> 00:15:31,960
Speaker 3: far it appears that the most powerful evidence they have

223
00:15:32,040 --> 00:15:37,400
Speaker 3: would be testimony from Peter Brumberg's, the cooperating First Brand's

224
00:15:37,600 --> 00:15:39,040
Speaker 3: executive who pleaded guilty.

225
00:15:39,400 --> 00:15:43,840
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, David. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis.

226
00:15:44,360 --> 00:15:49,760
Speaker 2: In other legal news today, a landmark trials for the

227
00:15:49,880 --> 00:15:53,880
Speaker 2: first time. Uber has been found liable for not preventing

228
00:15:53,920 --> 00:15:57,840
Speaker 2: an alleged sexual assault of a passenger. The ride shared

229
00:15:57,880 --> 00:16:00,000
Speaker 2: giant was hit with an eight and a half mills

230
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:03,800
Speaker 2: billion dollar verdict in a jury trial in Arizona, where

231
00:16:03,800 --> 00:16:06,760
Speaker 2: a nineteen year old woman said she was raped by

232
00:16:06,760 --> 00:16:10,360
Speaker 2: her driver. The company said it plans to appeal. The

233
00:16:10,480 --> 00:16:13,800
Speaker 2: jury found that Uber was liable because the driver was

234
00:16:13,880 --> 00:16:17,120
Speaker 2: acting as an apparent agent of the company, but the

235
00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:21,960
Speaker 2: jury said Uber didn't act negligently or design a defective product,

236
00:16:22,160 --> 00:16:24,920
Speaker 2: but the verdict does raise the risk of a costly

237
00:16:25,120 --> 00:16:29,280
Speaker 2: settlement to resolve the more than three thousand similar civil

238
00:16:29,360 --> 00:16:34,080
Speaker 2: lawsuits from passengers filed around the country. Uber did prevail

239
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:37,720
Speaker 2: in a similar case last year in California State Court.

240
00:16:38,080 --> 00:16:41,640
Speaker 2: Joining me is Dana Whitfield, a partner at SPA in Bernstein.

241
00:16:42,280 --> 00:16:46,600
Speaker 2: Uber for years has been fighting these sexual assault claims

242
00:16:47,280 --> 00:16:50,600
Speaker 2: by arguing that the company can't be blamed that the

243
00:16:50,680 --> 00:16:53,400
Speaker 2: drivers are independent contractors. Can you tell us a little

244
00:16:53,400 --> 00:16:53,960
Speaker 2: bit about that?

245
00:16:55,440 --> 00:16:55,880
Speaker 1: Sure?

246
00:16:56,000 --> 00:16:59,760
Speaker 4: Well, that's always been their go to response, and it's

247
00:16:59,760 --> 00:17:04,240
Speaker 4: true they are independent contractors. However, despite them being an

248
00:17:04,240 --> 00:17:09,320
Speaker 4: independent contractor, they still are only able to access passengers

249
00:17:09,600 --> 00:17:13,000
Speaker 4: through the software that was created by Uber. So since

250
00:17:13,080 --> 00:17:17,480
Speaker 4: there is a level of respond to yet superior is

251
00:17:17,640 --> 00:17:21,119
Speaker 4: the actual legal term where the fact that they both

252
00:17:21,520 --> 00:17:26,439
Speaker 4: gain something, they become an agent of Uber.

253
00:17:26,800 --> 00:17:29,280
Speaker 1: These drivers do the Uber is the.

254
00:17:29,160 --> 00:17:33,440
Speaker 4: One that retains and collects the fare they pay these

255
00:17:33,520 --> 00:17:38,280
Speaker 4: drivers based on the software that's used and the access.

256
00:17:38,680 --> 00:17:43,200
Speaker 4: So despite there being an independent contactors situation, they also

257
00:17:43,320 --> 00:17:47,320
Speaker 4: are able to say that you're an agent of Uber.

258
00:17:47,359 --> 00:17:50,719
Speaker 4: So therefore Uber has a responsibility to their passengers, who

259
00:17:50,800 --> 00:17:53,919
Speaker 4: they promote the software too, that they're going to be

260
00:17:54,000 --> 00:17:56,760
Speaker 4: safe and they're going to implement safety measures to prevent

261
00:17:57,119 --> 00:17:59,320
Speaker 4: the drivers from assaulting passengers.

262
00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:03,199
Speaker 2: Tell us about how the jury came down here on

263
00:18:03,560 --> 00:18:06,640
Speaker 2: the agency and on negligence.

264
00:18:07,480 --> 00:18:13,679
Speaker 4: Well, the jurors clearly found that Uber not only failed

265
00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:16,080
Speaker 4: to implement the safety measures, but they also failed to

266
00:18:16,160 --> 00:18:18,520
Speaker 4: properly screen these drivers.

267
00:18:18,640 --> 00:18:20,160
Speaker 1: So you had mentioned.

268
00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:22,960
Speaker 4: Earlier that there have been, you know, numerous complaints, and

269
00:18:23,000 --> 00:18:25,840
Speaker 4: they've known this for years. It actually goes back to

270
00:18:26,359 --> 00:18:30,960
Speaker 4: these complaints coming as early as twenty fourteen. Also in

271
00:18:31,000 --> 00:18:34,760
Speaker 4: December of twenty nineteen, Uber had released a safety report

272
00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:37,639
Speaker 4: that showed that passengers had filed more than three thousand

273
00:18:37,680 --> 00:18:40,520
Speaker 4: complaints of sexual assault back then.

274
00:18:41,200 --> 00:18:42,240
Speaker 1: So they've had the.

275
00:18:42,240 --> 00:18:46,160
Speaker 4: Knowledge for many years that they could have done more.

276
00:18:46,280 --> 00:18:49,760
Speaker 4: They could have, as I mentioned, properly screened them, or

277
00:18:49,800 --> 00:18:53,800
Speaker 4: at the bare minimum, they could have advised and alerted

278
00:18:53,880 --> 00:18:58,240
Speaker 4: passengers of the risks of sexual assault by their drivers,

279
00:18:58,280 --> 00:19:01,359
Speaker 4: because a passenger is not going to know that there's

280
00:19:01,359 --> 00:19:04,560
Speaker 4: an independent contractor situation that these drivers are using their

281
00:19:04,600 --> 00:19:08,840
Speaker 4: own vehicles, sometimes their own insurance as well. So therefore

282
00:19:09,359 --> 00:19:13,920
Speaker 4: you're putting your faith into a billion dollar companies such

283
00:19:13,920 --> 00:19:17,400
Speaker 4: as Uber, but really your safety at your at risk

284
00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:20,199
Speaker 4: because there's just a driver who may only have one

285
00:19:20,280 --> 00:19:23,159
Speaker 4: hundred thousand dollars policy limit, and you don't know where

286
00:19:23,400 --> 00:19:25,840
Speaker 4: they previously worked or if they were just maybe even

287
00:19:25,880 --> 00:19:26,399
Speaker 4: out of prison.

288
00:19:26,440 --> 00:19:28,600
Speaker 1: You have no idea who is driving you.

289
00:19:28,600 --> 00:19:30,960
Speaker 4: You only know that you're trusting Uber because you downloaded

290
00:19:30,960 --> 00:19:31,320
Speaker 4: the app.

291
00:19:31,760 --> 00:19:34,720
Speaker 2: But the jury didn't find that Uber was negligent.

292
00:19:35,440 --> 00:19:38,360
Speaker 4: They found that there was clearly an issue with regard

293
00:19:38,440 --> 00:19:43,560
Speaker 4: to the sexual assault, so they were liable because of

294
00:19:43,760 --> 00:19:46,280
Speaker 4: the agency. That's where they found that there has to

295
00:19:46,320 --> 00:19:48,240
Speaker 4: be summer. So the award of I believe it was

296
00:19:48,280 --> 00:19:51,280
Speaker 4: eight point five million to this young lady was based

297
00:19:51,320 --> 00:19:53,919
Speaker 4: on the fact that while the criminal action was that

298
00:19:54,040 --> 00:19:58,800
Speaker 4: of the driver, it was Uber who failed to implement

299
00:19:58,840 --> 00:19:59,959
Speaker 4: these safety precautions.

300
00:20:00,720 --> 00:20:04,040
Speaker 2: Is Uber sort of taking comfort in the fact that

301
00:20:04,440 --> 00:20:07,960
Speaker 2: it wasn't found guilty of negligence despite everything that you

302
00:20:08,119 --> 00:20:08,800
Speaker 2: just mentioned.

303
00:20:09,119 --> 00:20:10,679
Speaker 4: It's going to be what they're going to hang their

304
00:20:10,720 --> 00:20:12,119
Speaker 4: hat on. But I think it's going to set a

305
00:20:12,119 --> 00:20:15,440
Speaker 4: precedent that, based on the fact that there are thousands

306
00:20:15,440 --> 00:20:18,040
Speaker 4: of other cases, that this is going to be something

307
00:20:18,040 --> 00:20:21,280
Speaker 4: that other states will actually hold on to instead there

308
00:20:21,359 --> 00:20:25,240
Speaker 4: are women who are finding that I've been assaulted by

309
00:20:25,720 --> 00:20:28,960
Speaker 4: an Uber driver and despite there being this relationship where

310
00:20:29,000 --> 00:20:32,240
Speaker 4: they're an independent contractor, Uber had knowledge and could have

311
00:20:32,320 --> 00:20:35,040
Speaker 4: done something to protect me. So I think they're going

312
00:20:35,119 --> 00:20:38,000
Speaker 4: to have an issue with regard to other states, looking

313
00:20:38,040 --> 00:20:40,879
Speaker 4: to make sure that this decision now will set a

314
00:20:40,880 --> 00:20:43,200
Speaker 4: president for other states as well. In federal court.

315
00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:45,679
Speaker 2: Yeah, so federal court. So explain how this is a

316
00:20:45,680 --> 00:20:46,679
Speaker 2: Bellweather trial.

317
00:20:47,160 --> 00:20:50,240
Speaker 4: It's a Bellweather trial because of the magnitude, because there's

318
00:20:50,280 --> 00:20:53,520
Speaker 4: so many cases. And they've done this also with the

319
00:20:54,240 --> 00:20:57,639
Speaker 4: hair relaxer cases where there are instead of making it

320
00:20:57,680 --> 00:20:59,880
Speaker 4: a class action suit, they put them all in under

321
00:21:00,200 --> 00:21:04,919
Speaker 4: umbrella so that there is one measure to kind of

322
00:21:05,520 --> 00:21:08,280
Speaker 4: corral everyone into one case. So that's why they use

323
00:21:08,320 --> 00:21:08,600
Speaker 4: the belt.

324
00:21:08,600 --> 00:21:12,920
Speaker 2: By the trial in the California state trial that ended

325
00:21:12,960 --> 00:21:16,600
Speaker 2: with a different verdict, the jury found in that case

326
00:21:16,600 --> 00:21:20,280
Speaker 2: that Uber wasn't liable. How do you account for the differences.

327
00:21:20,760 --> 00:21:21,879
Speaker 1: It depends on the jurors.

328
00:21:21,920 --> 00:21:24,639
Speaker 4: But I think that now we have the contradiction, and

329
00:21:24,680 --> 00:21:26,320
Speaker 4: it also could have been that this case was in

330
00:21:26,320 --> 00:21:29,200
Speaker 4: the case in California was many years before we're still

331
00:21:29,240 --> 00:21:32,159
Speaker 4: dealing with the fact that what have they done to change?

332
00:21:32,200 --> 00:21:34,680
Speaker 4: There's a level of notice now that comes into play.

333
00:21:35,040 --> 00:21:38,159
Speaker 4: I believe with the Arizona decision is that if nothing

334
00:21:38,200 --> 00:21:42,080
Speaker 4: has changed and you're aware that there have been thousands

335
00:21:42,160 --> 00:21:45,359
Speaker 4: of complaints of sexual assaults, and you're still advertising and

336
00:21:45,359 --> 00:21:49,840
Speaker 4: you're still promoting that you are safe when really that's

337
00:21:49,880 --> 00:21:52,320
Speaker 4: not true. So that was the main issue is that

338
00:21:52,400 --> 00:21:55,240
Speaker 4: I think that they are looking into are you looking

339
00:21:55,280 --> 00:21:57,440
Speaker 4: at just the profits or are you looking at the

340
00:21:57,480 --> 00:22:00,639
Speaker 4: safety of your passengers? And if there's a priority with

341
00:22:00,960 --> 00:22:02,640
Speaker 4: regard to the profits, that's an issue.

342
00:22:02,800 --> 00:22:05,520
Speaker 2: Where does it fit in that Uber has, you know,

343
00:22:05,680 --> 00:22:09,080
Speaker 2: rolled out some safety measures. You know, you can share

344
00:22:09,119 --> 00:22:12,919
Speaker 2: your ride location with friends, there's an option if you

345
00:22:12,960 --> 00:22:16,639
Speaker 2: want a female driver. Where does that fit into these cases?

346
00:22:17,480 --> 00:22:20,679
Speaker 4: I think that that's a start, of course, but I

347
00:22:20,720 --> 00:22:27,320
Speaker 4: think with regard to the negligent supervision, that's something that

348
00:22:27,840 --> 00:22:31,800
Speaker 4: no matter if you've shared your ride and you've requested

349
00:22:31,840 --> 00:22:35,680
Speaker 4: a female driver, what if there's nobody else that's available.

350
00:22:35,720 --> 00:22:36,920
Speaker 1: You still need to get that ride.

351
00:22:36,960 --> 00:22:39,800
Speaker 4: You still need to get home, and there has to

352
00:22:39,840 --> 00:22:43,040
Speaker 4: be a level of screening that has to take place

353
00:22:43,119 --> 00:22:45,480
Speaker 4: before you're even putting someone in the position to actually

354
00:22:45,520 --> 00:22:47,760
Speaker 4: be in a car with someone where where you could

355
00:22:47,760 --> 00:22:53,920
Speaker 4: be victimized. So that's where I think the arizonajurs found

356
00:22:53,920 --> 00:22:57,000
Speaker 4: there to be something that was lacking, that it wasn't

357
00:22:57,160 --> 00:23:00,240
Speaker 4: enough that there should be something done with regard to

358
00:23:00,240 --> 00:23:03,560
Speaker 4: screening before they're even allowed to have access to the

359
00:23:03,640 --> 00:23:06,719
Speaker 4: app to be able to reach these passengers.

360
00:23:07,080 --> 00:23:10,760
Speaker 2: So what do you think Uber's chances on a PLR.

361
00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:15,320
Speaker 4: I mean, there's always, you know, a fifty to fifty chance.

362
00:23:15,680 --> 00:23:16,600
Speaker 1: You really can't tell.

363
00:23:16,680 --> 00:23:20,679
Speaker 4: I mean, because there's been conflicting decisions, I think that

364
00:23:20,680 --> 00:23:23,080
Speaker 4: there's a chance, but it really doesn't matter. Is there's

365
00:23:23,160 --> 00:23:25,920
Speaker 4: going to be a consensus with regard to could there

366
00:23:25,960 --> 00:23:29,880
Speaker 4: have been something that was a misrepresentation of the law,

367
00:23:29,920 --> 00:23:31,679
Speaker 4: and I don't believe that in this case that there was.

368
00:23:32,720 --> 00:23:35,600
Speaker 2: So do you think that we'll start to see settlements

369
00:23:35,600 --> 00:23:36,879
Speaker 2: in some of these cases.

370
00:23:37,600 --> 00:23:39,560
Speaker 4: I think we were already seeing settlements in some of

371
00:23:39,600 --> 00:23:41,800
Speaker 4: these cases, which is why so many have not made

372
00:23:41,800 --> 00:23:44,280
Speaker 4: it to the federal court or even to state court.

373
00:23:44,480 --> 00:23:47,200
Speaker 1: But I think that this decision.

374
00:23:46,760 --> 00:23:49,560
Speaker 4: Will now put Uber on notice that if you're not

375
00:23:49,600 --> 00:23:51,760
Speaker 4: going to change the approach and you're not going to

376
00:23:51,840 --> 00:23:54,439
Speaker 4: change the advertising and the safety measures that we're going

377
00:23:54,480 --> 00:23:56,440
Speaker 4: to be seeing a few more settlements until there's a

378
00:23:56,480 --> 00:23:58,840
Speaker 4: decision or an appeal that states otherwise.

379
00:23:59,160 --> 00:24:03,200
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for today. That's Dana Whitfield, managing partner

380
00:24:03,200 --> 00:24:07,320
Speaker 2: of the Personal Injury Department at SPA and Bernstein, and

381
00:24:07,359 --> 00:24:09,520
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

382
00:24:09,840 --> 00:24:12,199
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

383
00:24:12,240 --> 00:24:16,520
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

384
00:24:16,720 --> 00:24:21,760
Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

385
00:24:22,160 --> 00:24:24,720
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

386
00:24:24,800 --> 00:24:28,680
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

387
00:24:28,840 --> 00:24:30,440
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg