WEBVTT - FTX Investors Sue Celebrities, Border Policy Suit 0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloombird Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:12.879 It's the twenty nine lawsuit brought by Texas to challenge 0:00:12.960 --> 0:00:17.200 Biden administration policies, and this week the Supreme Court justices 0:00:17.280 --> 0:00:22.720 seemed divided over the administration shifting its deportation priorities the 0:00:22.800 --> 0:00:26.239 law meant reality when the justices were confronted with the 0:00:26.280 --> 0:00:29.840 fact that Congress has never provided the funds that would 0:00:29.880 --> 0:00:33.080 be needed to arrest and report all of the estimated 0:00:33.120 --> 0:00:37.440 eleven million undocumented immigrants in the US despite what the 0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:41.919 law says. Here are the Chief Justice and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Now, 0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:43.680 it's our job to say what the law is, not 0:00:43.760 --> 0:00:46.560 whether or not it can be possibly implemented or whether 0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:49.360 there are difficulties there um. And I don't think we 0:00:49.400 --> 0:00:53.440 should change that responsibility just because Congress and Executive can't 0:00:53.440 --> 0:00:56.800 agree on something that's possible to address this this problem. 0:00:56.880 --> 0:00:58.480 I don't think we should let them off the hook. 0:01:00.040 --> 0:01:02.040 Trying to figure out how this will play out if 0:01:02.080 --> 0:01:07.560 you were to prevail. Uh So the government uh uh 0:01:07.720 --> 0:01:12.000 says we don't have the money to comply, then then 0:01:12.040 --> 0:01:15.440 what do you do? And Justice Elena Kagan question the 0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:19.679 right of states like Texas to challenge and frequently block 0:01:20.040 --> 0:01:24.160 every new immigration policy. Immigration policy is supposed to be 0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:28.039 the zenith of federal power, and it's supposed to be 0:01:28.120 --> 0:01:32.080 the zenith of executive power. And instead we're creating a 0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:37.119 system where a combination of states and courts can bring 0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:40.960 immigration policy to a dead halt. My guest is immigration 0:01:41.040 --> 0:01:44.440 law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollanden Knight. Leon, 0:01:44.480 --> 0:01:47.240 there are several issues going on in this case. Explain 0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:50.720 the basics for us well. This case is about a 0:01:50.720 --> 0:01:54.480 memorandum that was issued by the Biden administration that said 0:01:54.520 --> 0:01:59.840 that they're going to prioritize basically violent offenders, national security risk, 0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:03.800 and very very recent border crossers as the people that 0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:07.440 are prioritizing for removal and everybody else would be de 0:02:07.640 --> 0:02:12.280 prioritized for removal, including some people and people with certain 0:02:12.280 --> 0:02:16.360 criminal convictions that the statute would require that they be 0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:20.200 detained and removed if they were apprehended by I Because 0:02:20.240 --> 0:02:22.360 the idea of the memo is that even though some 0:02:22.440 --> 0:02:26.560 people might nominally fit these categories, such as someone, for instance, 0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:32.079 who stole a chocolate bar from a store, that individual 0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:34.880 in the parameters of all of the equities, might not 0:02:35.000 --> 0:02:36.960 be someone you would want to remove if they had 0:02:37.160 --> 0:02:40.079 five U. S. Citizen children and where the sole breadwinner 0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:43.920 for that family, And so that memmo says to look 0:02:43.919 --> 0:02:47.280 into all of that information and make a decision. And 0:02:47.320 --> 0:02:50.200 what the State of Texas is doing, is it challenging 0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:52.320 that memo saying that at the end of the day, 0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:57.560 there shouldn't be any discretion to de prioritize anybody from removal. 0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:01.000 I find someone, they should remove someone. End of the story, 0:03:01.080 --> 0:03:05.800 no further discussion. The first question is a threshold question 0:03:06.200 --> 0:03:10.200 whether Texas has standing or the legal right to challenge 0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:15.960 the administration's guidelines. Correct. The Court was actually very concerned 0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:18.720 about this fact because what they were looking at was, 0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:22.320 first of all, to the Administrative Procedure Act, did someone 0:03:22.480 --> 0:03:26.679 have to be specially affected? And even just as the 0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:29.600 Leado sort of said, you know, specially offended, I think, 0:03:29.680 --> 0:03:32.800 was the m used to have standing as opposed to 0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:35.720 what states have been doing previously and what the courts 0:03:35.720 --> 0:03:38.760 have been ruling previously. The states get whatever it's called 0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:42.120 a special solicitude, which is they get a little bit 0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:46.200 of an exception from standing because they have these interests 0:03:46.200 --> 0:03:49.200 in terms of all of their state residents that they 0:03:49.200 --> 0:03:53.560 could bring that prompt any individual resident couldn't bring. And 0:03:53.640 --> 0:03:56.600 so the court was talking about that issue. But then 0:03:56.800 --> 0:03:59.440 the court was also talking about, well, what about these 0:03:59.520 --> 0:04:02.840 Texas actually affected even if you make them give a 0:04:03.000 --> 0:04:05.720 standing analysis? So, first of all, do they even have 0:04:05.880 --> 0:04:09.000 to have one? Could they just have this special collissitude 0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:11.240 to sue? But if they have to have one, well 0:04:11.520 --> 0:04:15.320 what about their justification that they gave that their healthcare 0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:19.560 costs are going to be higher because of this demo 0:04:19.680 --> 0:04:23.760 that the prioritizes people. And at the end of the day, 0:04:23.839 --> 0:04:26.480 that's sort of such a speculative claim because I don't 0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:30.599 think there's any economic analysis that really works these things 0:04:30.600 --> 0:04:33.640 out in terms of a very large picture. I mean, 0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:36.520 you sort of have, in general, more people equals more 0:04:36.600 --> 0:04:39.719 GDP equals more government revenue, and then you have to 0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:42.720 figure out where each person is from the point of 0:04:42.800 --> 0:04:45.520 view of how much they take, and the standing require 0:04:45.640 --> 0:04:48.800 that kind of analysis or does it require just a 0:04:48.920 --> 0:04:52.440 harm irrespective of the benefit. And so they're trying to 0:04:52.480 --> 0:04:55.680 weigh all of that. But I think they will continue 0:04:56.080 --> 0:04:59.279 by allowing the standing. I think that's ultimately not going 0:04:59.360 --> 0:05:02.360 to be the issue where this case gets decided. I 0:05:02.400 --> 0:05:04.960 think the court will do something it familiarly does in 0:05:05.000 --> 0:05:08.880 many cases, which they will assume but not decide that 0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:12.680 Texas has standing and punt that issue for another day 0:05:12.720 --> 0:05:17.200 and get to other issues. In this case, probably another issue, 0:05:17.960 --> 0:05:21.760 perhaps the issue is that the law says that some 0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:26.600 immigrants quote shall be taken into custody or removed. Correct. 0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:29.280 There's a law called iron A Section to thirty six 0:05:30.000 --> 0:05:33.640 or tital A U. S Coat, depending on where you're 0:05:33.640 --> 0:05:37.040 looking in the statutes that says that there's a specific 0:05:37.120 --> 0:05:40.320 type of foreign national. If you commit certain types of crime, 0:05:40.839 --> 0:05:45.120 you have to be detained mandatorially and removed from the country. 0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:49.560 And so there was some gradation there with Avy Coney, 0:05:49.640 --> 0:05:53.920 Barrett and Neil Morrisage where they were saying to the 0:05:54.120 --> 0:05:57.279 Department of Justice, well, look, maybe you have this broad 0:05:57.680 --> 0:06:01.600 power for people you haven't maintained that you don't know 0:06:01.640 --> 0:06:03.600 anything about it. They're just your run of the mill 0:06:04.000 --> 0:06:08.120 undocumented person that overstayed their visa or that crossed the 0:06:08.200 --> 0:06:12.080 border on lawfully ten years ago. But that's different than 0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:15.120 when you literally know of somebody who's one of the 0:06:15.160 --> 0:06:19.080 two thirty six foreign nationals who has a criminal conviction. 0:06:19.480 --> 0:06:21.919 What gives you the authority to have a memo that 0:06:22.040 --> 0:06:28.320 the prioritizes within that category when Congress clearly said prioritize 0:06:28.360 --> 0:06:32.479 people in that category. And so there I can see 0:06:32.520 --> 0:06:37.360 a compromise decision which strikes maybe that part of the memo, 0:06:37.920 --> 0:06:41.640 but says that the administration has broad this present with 0:06:41.720 --> 0:06:46.159 regard to people for border crossers and visa overstays to 0:06:46.200 --> 0:06:49.279 figure out what groups of those people to prioritize or 0:06:49.360 --> 0:06:52.599 not prioritize, given that there isn't sufficient funds for all 0:06:52.640 --> 0:06:58.359 of those people. Some of the justices, particularly the Chief Justice, said, 0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:02.120 challis shall and we follow the law. We don't decide 0:07:02.200 --> 0:07:05.080 how the law is going to be implemented, But then 0:07:05.200 --> 0:07:08.720 question how you could force the government into doing something 0:07:09.279 --> 0:07:11.000 it just doesn't have the money to do. So I 0:07:11.000 --> 0:07:14.280 think there was a very interesting philosophical debate that Justice 0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:16.240 Roberts was saying, which is, look, at the end of 0:07:16.240 --> 0:07:20.800 the day, there isn't probably funding to enforce any law. 0:07:21.200 --> 0:07:24.520 But the point is that's a different question than whether 0:07:25.160 --> 0:07:28.240 the government can exempt people. So you know, you say 0:07:28.280 --> 0:07:32.800 we're gonna exempt this group of offenders from tax prosecution 0:07:32.920 --> 0:07:36.840 or this group of labor law offenders from labor law prosecents. Sure, 0:07:36.880 --> 0:07:38.920 you don't have enough fun each to prosecute every labor 0:07:39.000 --> 0:07:41.920 law by later. But that's a different thing than writing 0:07:41.920 --> 0:07:45.760 a memo for people. And so what Justice Roberts says is, look, 0:07:45.760 --> 0:07:48.600 and we just say, there's a world where you can't 0:07:48.600 --> 0:07:51.640 write a memo, but you just do your best within 0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:54.880 the limited constraints that you have. And I think that 0:07:55.080 --> 0:07:58.560 is an important discussion. But then it gets balanced with 0:07:58.640 --> 0:08:01.720 the question of Okay, let's say it's true. What now 0:08:01.760 --> 0:08:04.960 what does the agency do. Now do you actually let 0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:08.800 it sort of run as this rudderless agency without any priorities, 0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:11.119 or does the state of Texas actually get the rights 0:08:11.160 --> 0:08:14.600 the priorities for I or does the judge get to 0:08:14.720 --> 0:08:18.560 write the priority for ice enforce them to support specific people. 0:08:18.800 --> 0:08:21.600 And I think that's where this thing falls apart. That's 0:08:21.600 --> 0:08:24.640 where I think you'll see a comment together coalition of 0:08:24.720 --> 0:08:28.120 justices say, look, you can't write a memo that the 0:08:28.280 --> 0:08:32.120 prioritizes people that Congress prioritize a k A. People with 0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:35.839 certain criminal convictions. But within the categories of people where 0:08:35.880 --> 0:08:39.440 there's clearly not enough funding, those you can actually create 0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:43.680 a prioritization. Given the historical basis of immigration law and 0:08:43.720 --> 0:08:47.040 the broad authority it gives to the federal government, the 0:08:47.080 --> 0:08:50.040 executive brank to deal with these issues so lely on 0:08:50.200 --> 0:08:54.200 what happened to the federal government being in charge of 0:08:54.280 --> 0:08:59.600 immigration policies not the states. Well, I think that's going 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:03.240 to be the underlying issues, And I think you're gonna 0:09:03.280 --> 0:09:06.280 get a topple together group of justices. You already had 0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:09.520 Justice Cony Barrett who would have granted an injunction in 0:09:09.559 --> 0:09:12.160 the first place. So now the question is can you 0:09:12.240 --> 0:09:14.920 get I don't think you're gonna get Alito. I don't 0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:17.199 think you're gonna get Thomas. I don't think you're gonna 0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:21.560 get Kavanaugh. But can you get either one of Roberts 0:09:21.720 --> 0:09:25.839 or Gorsage to come along to the principle of fine? 0:09:25.960 --> 0:09:31.120 Even if we say that this memo is unlawful, what's 0:09:31.160 --> 0:09:33.640 the remedy really, at the end of the day, Are 0:09:33.679 --> 0:09:37.480 we gonna have a court system that dictates to the 0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:41.120 federal government what they do via the Immigration Enforcement No, 0:09:41.320 --> 0:09:43.640 of course not. And so because of that, what we're 0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:48.319 gonna do is we're going to basically write out the 0:09:48.400 --> 0:09:51.840 little section of this memo that we think actually violates 0:09:51.880 --> 0:09:54.760 the statute, the one that basically tells people to be 0:09:54.880 --> 0:09:59.000 prioritize even the people with criminal convictions, but give broad 0:09:59.120 --> 0:10:02.600 latitude during the rest of the group of people who 0:10:02.640 --> 0:10:06.400 are basically eleven million border crossters and these over space 0:10:06.720 --> 0:10:10.240 that they be prioritized into groups where some are more 0:10:10.280 --> 0:10:12.560 serious and some are less serious. I thought it was 0:10:12.640 --> 0:10:17.400 really interesting that Justice Kagan brought out the fact that 0:10:17.840 --> 0:10:21.800 has been forum shopping for judges that will issue nationwide 0:10:21.800 --> 0:10:27.400 injunctions in these cases. In Texas, there are divisions within districts. 0:10:27.480 --> 0:10:31.080 You can pick your trial court judge. Um. Uh, you 0:10:31.120 --> 0:10:34.400 know you played by the rules. That's fine, but you 0:10:34.480 --> 0:10:37.880 picked your trial court judge. One judge stops a federal 0:10:37.920 --> 0:10:41.520 immigration policy in its tracks. It's certainly an issue that, 0:10:41.640 --> 0:10:43.880 no matter who's doing it, needs to be addressed that 0:10:43.880 --> 0:10:47.040 there perhaps needs to be three judge panels that get 0:10:47.080 --> 0:10:50.439 convened in cases where people are challenging the constant and 0:10:50.480 --> 0:10:53.520 tumality and pumping. But in the end that won't be 0:10:53.880 --> 0:10:56.280 the basis upon which this case is the side of 0:10:56.640 --> 0:10:58.880 You've given hints here and there, but tell us what 0:10:58.960 --> 0:11:02.920 you think the decision will be based on the oral argument. 0:11:03.040 --> 0:11:05.400 I think they will say we will assume enough the 0:11:05.480 --> 0:11:08.920 fighting that they're staying it. We will say that at 0:11:08.920 --> 0:11:11.120 the end of the day, we're not going to get 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:14.040 to the issue here as to whether a vacant or 0:11:14.600 --> 0:11:18.800 is the same thing as a as an injunction, because 0:11:18.880 --> 0:11:21.760 all we're gonna do here is we're gonna say that 0:11:21.840 --> 0:11:24.959 this memo can survive, but no part of the memo 0:11:25.160 --> 0:11:30.640 can survive moving forward if it conflicts with a federal statute. 0:11:31.120 --> 0:11:33.800 And so the parts of the memo that conflict with 0:11:34.240 --> 0:11:37.960 the shall detain parts have to be written again, and 0:11:38.000 --> 0:11:40.600 we're gonna leave that to the disrecord to figure out 0:11:40.600 --> 0:11:43.640 which parts conflict with that. Something like that I could 0:11:43.679 --> 0:11:46.600 see happening, and then we will see where that goes 0:11:46.640 --> 0:11:49.560 moving forward. But I think that's where this is likely 0:11:49.600 --> 0:11:51.680 to go. I think they're likely to fund a lot 0:11:51.679 --> 0:11:54.559 of the big issues. I could be proven wrong, and 0:11:54.559 --> 0:11:56.640 and that would certainly not be the first time. But 0:11:57.000 --> 0:12:00.079 you know, it would take one justice moving a a 0:12:00.240 --> 0:12:04.040 from where they were in previous court decisions to do this. 0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:06.960 So we'll see if that ends up being the way. 0:12:07.320 --> 0:12:09.160 But I think given what we saw in the remain 0:12:09.200 --> 0:12:12.200 in Mexico case, I think you'll see a practical five 0:12:12.320 --> 0:12:16.800 judge coelligence created that basically allows the federal government to 0:12:16.840 --> 0:12:20.880 create these priorities, but not for places where they clearly 0:12:20.920 --> 0:12:24.760 conflict with PATO. Thanks Leon be'st Leon Fresco of Hollanden 0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:29.160 Night coming up. F t X investors, SUS celebrities. This 0:12:29.320 --> 0:12:42.920 is Bloomberg. I call it the wheel. Sure, I don't 0:12:42.920 --> 0:12:47.960 think so. What does it do? Yeah? So does a bagel? Okay, bagel? 0:12:48.000 --> 0:12:50.960 You KENI one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. 0:12:51.320 --> 0:12:54.600 Larry David played a skeptic about f t X in 0:12:54.640 --> 0:12:57.839 a Super Bowl ad that went viral, and it turned 0:12:57.840 --> 0:13:00.079 out it was smart to treat the crypto cur and 0:13:00.200 --> 0:13:04.600 cy platforms claims with skepticism. But David is now being 0:13:04.679 --> 0:13:09.560 sued for luring unsophisticated investors into the f t X debaco. 0:13:09.960 --> 0:13:13.640 And he's not the only celebrity. Tom Brady, Gisele Bunch 0:13:13.720 --> 0:13:17.199 and Shaquille O'Neal and Steph Curry are also being sued, 0:13:17.440 --> 0:13:21.280 and some of their endorsements were more straightforward. Okay, chryp, 0:13:21.400 --> 0:13:24.920 messing around, man, give me some tips from crypto, but 0:13:25.080 --> 0:13:27.720 you are an expert. Right now, I'm not an expert, 0:13:27.840 --> 0:13:29.840 and I don't need to be with f t X. 0:13:30.200 --> 0:13:33.360 Everything I need to buy, sell, and trade crypto safely. 0:13:33.800 --> 0:13:37.280 My guest is Shane's Sappini, founder of Subpini l LP. 0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:41.520 There are lots of people to sue here, lots of 0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:45.520 entities as well, So why sue celebrity some with a 0:13:45.640 --> 0:13:49.520 tenuous connection to what happened? I think what's going on 0:13:49.600 --> 0:13:54.400 here mostly is that the celebrities aren't individually bankrupt, So 0:13:54.760 --> 0:13:57.240 if the Blankets were to sue f t X, that 0:13:57.320 --> 0:14:00.679 lawsuit would be paused during the pendency of the bankruptcy, 0:14:00.760 --> 0:14:02.840 or at least for parts of the bankruptcy. And you 0:14:02.840 --> 0:14:05.000 don't have that same issue if you see somebody like 0:14:05.080 --> 0:14:08.199 Chiquille O'Neill, who is certainly not bankrupt. But is there 0:14:08.240 --> 0:14:12.120 also an added factor of drawing attention to the lawsuit. 0:14:12.440 --> 0:14:15.800 I think there is definitely an aspect of wanting to 0:14:15.880 --> 0:14:19.040 draw attention to the lawsuit by bringing in people whose 0:14:19.120 --> 0:14:22.400 names are regularly in the news. For example, I don't 0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:26.080 think that Larry David was included in this lawsuit necessarily 0:14:26.120 --> 0:14:28.480 because of the claims against him are particularly strong, but 0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:30.840 rather because he was participant in one of the most 0:14:30.880 --> 0:14:33.680 popular and widely shared Super Bowl ads of all time. 0:14:33.840 --> 0:14:37.000 I don't think that's a coincidence. The celebrity's liability depends 0:14:37.040 --> 0:14:40.680 on whether the products they promoted. Our Securities tell us 0:14:40.720 --> 0:14:43.880 more about that. Securities law is something that's developed over 0:14:43.960 --> 0:14:46.960 hundreds of years to protect the investing public from the 0:14:47.040 --> 0:14:51.200 exact types of issues that have arisen in the wild 0:14:51.280 --> 0:14:55.120 wild West of cryptocurrency trading. They're there to make sure 0:14:55.720 --> 0:14:59.120 that when people are promoting stocks and other types of 0:14:59.160 --> 0:15:03.120 securities that what they're promoting actually is real and actually exists, 0:15:03.120 --> 0:15:05.640 and isn't just a complete sham or a fraud. And 0:15:06.000 --> 0:15:08.520 if it turns out that it is a shammera fraud, 0:15:08.600 --> 0:15:12.200 then the investing public has some modicum of protection at least. 0:15:12.360 --> 0:15:15.760 And so basically you have everybody other than crypto boosters 0:15:15.760 --> 0:15:20.760 who say that cryptocurrencies should or our securities. They have 0:15:21.040 --> 0:15:24.040 many of the hallmarks of a traditional security. The problem 0:15:24.120 --> 0:15:27.200 is that people who boost cryptos say what's great about 0:15:27.280 --> 0:15:29.360 it is the lack of regulation, so to the extent 0:15:29.440 --> 0:15:31.200 that they are found to these securities, it's a big 0:15:31.200 --> 0:15:34.120 problem for the cryptocurrency industry as a whole because it 0:15:34.120 --> 0:15:36.440 will bring them under much tighter and in my opinion, 0:15:36.680 --> 0:15:40.880 much needed regulatory scrutiny, And the Securities and Exchange Commission 0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:44.720 has indicated that it thinks their securities. So let's say 0:15:44.760 --> 0:15:47.920 they're found to be securities, what are the implications the 0:15:48.040 --> 0:15:51.120 security should have been registered with the state so that 0:15:51.160 --> 0:15:55.360 they could be reviewed and monitored and regulated for compliance 0:15:55.400 --> 0:15:58.320 of all types of different consumer protection laws. The reason 0:15:58.400 --> 0:16:01.359 I think, from a legal perspective, why they're bringing unregistered 0:16:01.400 --> 0:16:05.560 security actions rather than say outright fraud is with a 0:16:05.600 --> 0:16:09.120 fraud action, they would have to approve knowledge on the 0:16:09.160 --> 0:16:11.960 part of the celebrities as well as intent to defraud 0:16:12.160 --> 0:16:15.680 the consumers. And from all the reporting that I've seen 0:16:15.760 --> 0:16:18.640 and read, it was Sam Bankman, Freed and maybe only 0:16:18.680 --> 0:16:20.680 a few other people who had any intimate knowledge of 0:16:20.680 --> 0:16:22.400 what was actually going on at the company. So that 0:16:22.400 --> 0:16:25.600 would be a much harder hill to climb than just 0:16:25.840 --> 0:16:29.600 saying these are actually securities. They in fact were not registered, 0:16:29.640 --> 0:16:32.200 and then when they were marketed, they were illegally marketed 0:16:32.200 --> 0:16:35.600 as unregistered security, whether the celebrity knew that at the 0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:39.160 time or not. So now does it matter the kind 0:16:39.200 --> 0:16:43.640 of commercial I mean we talked, Larry David was actually saying, 0:16:43.760 --> 0:16:46.360 you know, I don't buy it. And you know, the 0:16:46.400 --> 0:16:51.120 Golden State Warriors are named. They unveiled the company's logo 0:16:51.440 --> 0:16:55.760 on the court at the team's arena, but then other celebrities, 0:16:55.920 --> 0:16:59.040 you know, promoted it more directly. I think it does 0:16:59.080 --> 0:17:01.720 depend on how they're moded. Putting the name of a 0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:04.800 company up on something or saying you know, they're the 0:17:04.800 --> 0:17:08.520 official sponsor of Golden State Warriors or whatever. You know, 0:17:08.880 --> 0:17:13.479 that's a far cry from somebody specifically saying, you know, 0:17:13.880 --> 0:17:16.359 they have these yield bearing accounts, these are great. You 0:17:16.600 --> 0:17:19.920 basically earned free money for nothing. Those kinds of statements 0:17:19.920 --> 0:17:22.760 are very different. And the thrust of your question, I 0:17:22.840 --> 0:17:24.440 think is correct that there's going to be a much 0:17:24.480 --> 0:17:28.600 harder time showing that link between the yield bearing accounts 0:17:28.640 --> 0:17:32.520 if they are deemed to be securities and uh commercial 0:17:32.520 --> 0:17:37.639 activity like naming something after ft X or doing a 0:17:37.640 --> 0:17:41.840 commercial where the celebrity like Larry David stays, you know, no, 0:17:41.840 --> 0:17:44.080 no thanks, I'll pass on this. But that said, I 0:17:44.080 --> 0:17:46.920 mean those commercials were all about getting people to put 0:17:46.920 --> 0:17:49.560 money into the yield bearing accounts. It's not like f 0:17:49.640 --> 0:17:52.280 t X ran the Larry David commercial to scare people 0:17:52.280 --> 0:17:54.639 away from their company. They did it because they know 0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:57.520 that he's like, you know, the curmugion that everybody loves 0:17:57.560 --> 0:18:00.960 to disagree with. So what might the Aberti's defense be 0:18:01.240 --> 0:18:04.080 at trial. I mean, it's unlikely that any of these 0:18:04.080 --> 0:18:06.640 cases will get before a jury, but if they did, 0:18:06.920 --> 0:18:08.639 the kind of argument they would make, like, look, we 0:18:08.680 --> 0:18:11.000 had no idea, and even if we had done reasonable 0:18:11.040 --> 0:18:13.560 due diligence, we couldn't have figured this out. Even you know, 0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:17.160 some of the smartest people in the most important executive 0:18:17.200 --> 0:18:20.480 agencies disagree on this question. Courts disagree on this question. 0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:23.400 How could you expect Steph Curry, who in the advertisement 0:18:23.440 --> 0:18:26.080 itself was saying, I don't know anything about crypto. I 0:18:26.119 --> 0:18:28.439 trust somebody else about it to determine whether these are 0:18:28.560 --> 0:18:31.159 securities or not. But they may run up against the 0:18:31.200 --> 0:18:33.360 old adage that every lawyer learns in law school, which 0:18:33.440 --> 0:18:35.560 is that ignorance of the law is not a defense. 0:18:36.040 --> 0:18:37.920 Why do you say that this is unlikely to get 0:18:37.920 --> 0:18:43.320 to a jury. I think there is so much uncertainty 0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:47.560 on both sides, and there's a lot of money at stake, 0:18:48.080 --> 0:18:50.800 and I think the celebrities realize that they're the only 0:18:50.920 --> 0:18:53.560 solvent parties here, and so I think it's highly likely 0:18:53.600 --> 0:18:55.680 that this is the type of case that will settle 0:18:55.840 --> 0:18:59.159 before going to trial, like most cases do. There may 0:18:59.240 --> 0:19:03.320 not be any they're solving parties besides these celebrities. But 0:19:03.640 --> 0:19:06.880 if you're talking about what thousands of people in this 0:19:06.960 --> 0:19:10.760 class action, what can they settle for that will satisfy 0:19:10.840 --> 0:19:15.000 a class like this? That's the potentially billion dollar question. 0:19:15.240 --> 0:19:18.240 I can't give a coaching answer on that, and I 0:19:18.280 --> 0:19:22.359 think that they're probably pretty intense discussions on this exact 0:19:22.400 --> 0:19:24.920 question going on between plaintiffs Council and the various defense 0:19:24.960 --> 0:19:27.960 council in this case. It's anybody's guests, what a number 0:19:28.000 --> 0:19:30.280 like that will look like a lot of litigation going 0:19:30.320 --> 0:19:33.120 on over f t X. Thanks so much, Shane. That's 0:19:33.160 --> 0:19:36.560 Shane Sabpoini of Sabboini LLLP. Coming up next on the 0:19:36.560 --> 0:19:40.800 Bloomberg Law Show. What do Jack Daniels, a Squeaky dog toy, 0:19:41.119 --> 0:19:44.320 and Ginger Rogers have in common? I'm June Grosso and 0:19:44.320 --> 0:19:45.639 you're listening to Bloomberg