1 00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,720 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:06,519 --> 00:00:09,520 Speaker 1: When you have that passion, you will get back up 3 00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:11,479 Speaker 1: when you get knocked down, and you will get knocked 4 00:00:11,520 --> 00:00:14,159 Speaker 1: down over and over and over and over again, and 5 00:00:14,240 --> 00:00:17,400 Speaker 1: you win by getting back up. And our journey has 6 00:00:17,440 --> 00:00:20,520 Speaker 1: been nothing but that. But will Elizabeth Holmes be able 7 00:00:20,560 --> 00:00:24,119 Speaker 1: to get back up after facing criminal charges? That was 8 00:00:24,160 --> 00:00:28,479 Speaker 1: a very confident Holmes at a Forbes conference in when 9 00:00:28,520 --> 00:00:32,280 Speaker 1: she was still the world's youngest female self made billionaire 10 00:00:32,520 --> 00:00:35,040 Speaker 1: and the darling of the tech and media worlds with 11 00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:39,680 Speaker 1: her promise to revolutionize blood testing. Home spectacular fall from 12 00:00:39,680 --> 00:00:42,879 Speaker 1: Grace has been plotted in books, countless news stories, and 13 00:00:42,920 --> 00:00:51,120 Speaker 1: an HBO documentary Is this was real? Secret? I don't 14 00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:54,480 Speaker 1: have many secrets. Her net worth was estimated at four 15 00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:58,560 Speaker 1: point five billion dollars, but that was before Thereas her 16 00:00:58,600 --> 00:01:02,720 Speaker 1: blood testing start up unraveled amid allegations that her main 17 00:01:02,840 --> 00:01:06,640 Speaker 1: product was really fraud, Holmes and her boyfriend were charged 18 00:01:06,680 --> 00:01:11,039 Speaker 1: with defrauding investors with homes, facing years in prison. Her 19 00:01:11,120 --> 00:01:14,240 Speaker 1: lawyers are now exploring whether she can beat the charges 20 00:01:14,520 --> 00:01:18,480 Speaker 1: by asking jurors to delve into her psychological state. The 21 00:01:18,520 --> 00:01:22,640 Speaker 1: exact strategy remains a question mark. Joining me is Anne Coughlin, 22 00:01:22,720 --> 00:01:25,440 Speaker 1: a criminal law professor at the University of Virginia Law 23 00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:30,200 Speaker 1: School who specializes in feminist jurisprudence. Her lawyers say they 24 00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:33,880 Speaker 1: may tell jurors about a mental disease or defect or 25 00:01:33,959 --> 00:01:37,200 Speaker 1: some other mental condition bearing on her guilt. Is that 26 00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:41,360 Speaker 1: an insanity defense or not an insanity defense? So, as 27 00:01:41,480 --> 00:01:46,839 Speaker 1: I read the documents that relate to this interesting claim, 28 00:01:46,880 --> 00:01:50,880 Speaker 1: I don't think she's raising an insanity defense. It's true 29 00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:55,560 Speaker 1: that her notice refers to men's disease or defect, but 30 00:01:56,040 --> 00:01:59,880 Speaker 1: when you read her motion papers carefully, she seems to 31 00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:04,240 Speaker 1: be invoking the theory that she's going to put forward 32 00:02:04,240 --> 00:02:07,920 Speaker 1: a mental disease or defects that in some way bears 33 00:02:08,160 --> 00:02:12,280 Speaker 1: on the question of whether she's guilty, And that's separate 34 00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:15,680 Speaker 1: from an insanity defense. It's a different kind of use 35 00:02:15,919 --> 00:02:20,480 Speaker 1: of a mental health disorder. When a defendant invokes a 36 00:02:20,520 --> 00:02:24,240 Speaker 1: mental health disorder, there's more than one way in which 37 00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:29,239 Speaker 1: they might be using the claim. One highly visible claim 38 00:02:29,480 --> 00:02:33,240 Speaker 1: is the insanity defense. But I think she's arguing that 39 00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:36,880 Speaker 1: she is going to use evidence of some kind of 40 00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:41,480 Speaker 1: mental health disorder to negate her guilt on the wire 41 00:02:41,520 --> 00:02:46,200 Speaker 1: fraud charges. And this is not a full blown insanity claim. 42 00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:48,519 Speaker 1: And we don't know how she's going to use this, 43 00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:51,840 Speaker 1: in part because a lot of the judge's order and 44 00:02:51,880 --> 00:02:56,720 Speaker 1: the motion papers were blacked out when it came to specifics. 45 00:02:56,800 --> 00:02:59,360 Speaker 1: So is it likely that she's going to try to 46 00:02:59,560 --> 00:03:01,920 Speaker 1: use it to show that she did not have intent 47 00:03:02,360 --> 00:03:05,440 Speaker 1: to commit wire fraud? That would be one of her claims. 48 00:03:05,480 --> 00:03:07,360 Speaker 1: And again, I want to just back up and say 49 00:03:07,400 --> 00:03:09,880 Speaker 1: to you, you're exactly right. One of us sort of 50 00:03:09,919 --> 00:03:15,239 Speaker 1: tantalizing things about Elizabeth Holmes case generally is we really 51 00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:19,640 Speaker 1: don't know a whole lot about the backstory, at least 52 00:03:19,680 --> 00:03:23,280 Speaker 1: we don't know about that backstory from her. So there's 53 00:03:23,320 --> 00:03:26,360 Speaker 1: been tons of reporting in the media, as you well know. 54 00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:30,360 Speaker 1: There's been books and magazine articles and documentaries in which 55 00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:33,880 Speaker 1: people are trying to put together a coherent story of 56 00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:37,480 Speaker 1: her life and what led up to the conducts that 57 00:03:37,560 --> 00:03:40,880 Speaker 1: ultimately culminates in these charges. But we really don't know 58 00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:44,240 Speaker 1: what facts she's going to allege, so we don't know 59 00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:47,080 Speaker 1: what her story is going to be that supports the 60 00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:50,120 Speaker 1: claim that she has a mental health disorder. But one 61 00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:53,840 Speaker 1: way that she could use a mental health disorder is 62 00:03:53,880 --> 00:03:58,840 Speaker 1: to support the so called diminished capacity defense, and the 63 00:03:58,920 --> 00:04:02,200 Speaker 1: idea would be that, yes, she did all these things. 64 00:04:02,240 --> 00:04:06,360 Speaker 1: She committed all the conduct that the government alleges, but 65 00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:09,760 Speaker 1: when she was doing those things, her purpose was not 66 00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:14,680 Speaker 1: to defraud people, but was for some other reason. Right, 67 00:04:14,840 --> 00:04:18,680 Speaker 1: And then we're left to try to speculate again what 68 00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:22,679 Speaker 1: she's going to claim her purpose was. So in order 69 00:04:22,720 --> 00:04:26,719 Speaker 1: for the government to please these wire fraud charges, they 70 00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:30,760 Speaker 1: have to prove not only that she lied, that she 71 00:04:30,920 --> 00:04:34,640 Speaker 1: made false representations, but that she did so for the 72 00:04:34,720 --> 00:04:38,000 Speaker 1: purpose of defrauding people of their money. So one way 73 00:04:38,040 --> 00:04:40,560 Speaker 1: to think about this is that she's going to argue, yes, 74 00:04:40,600 --> 00:04:44,080 Speaker 1: I did these things, they were lies, but I wasn't 75 00:04:44,160 --> 00:04:47,240 Speaker 1: doing it to defraud people. I was doing it for 76 00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:51,799 Speaker 1: some other reason that's explained by the mental health disorder. 77 00:04:52,320 --> 00:04:55,080 Speaker 1: You know, I was doing it because I had such 78 00:04:55,120 --> 00:04:58,280 Speaker 1: a fragile ego. You Know, one thing she might claim 79 00:04:58,400 --> 00:05:03,120 Speaker 1: is that at the inception of my activity, I honestly 80 00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:05,679 Speaker 1: thought that I was going to be able to come 81 00:05:05,800 --> 00:05:10,320 Speaker 1: up with this miracle way to do blood tests. You know, 82 00:05:10,440 --> 00:05:13,520 Speaker 1: that was my objective as a young person, and I 83 00:05:13,600 --> 00:05:15,599 Speaker 1: actually thought I was going to be able to pull 84 00:05:15,640 --> 00:05:18,000 Speaker 1: it off right, so that in the beginning I wasn't 85 00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:22,080 Speaker 1: lying to people. I was describing for them my aspiration 86 00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:26,200 Speaker 1: in this technological space. Okay, fine, I don't see how 87 00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:28,720 Speaker 1: that story can hold up for the many, many years. 88 00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:30,960 Speaker 1: But that's one claim that she might try to make. 89 00:05:31,480 --> 00:05:34,160 Speaker 1: Does it seem as if any kind of defense like 90 00:05:34,320 --> 00:05:37,320 Speaker 1: this is going to be difficult in light of the 91 00:05:37,400 --> 00:05:43,120 Speaker 1: accusations that she adopted this persona based on Silicon Valley elites, 92 00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:46,839 Speaker 1: that she even adopted a deep baritone voice. Does it 93 00:05:46,880 --> 00:05:50,800 Speaker 1: seem like any claim of mental disease would fail in 94 00:05:50,920 --> 00:05:54,400 Speaker 1: light of that persona she kept up so successfully for 95 00:05:54,440 --> 00:05:57,920 Speaker 1: so many years. From where we sit now, and again, 96 00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:00,160 Speaker 1: you know, I'm a lawyer, I'm a law professor here, 97 00:06:00,360 --> 00:06:03,880 Speaker 1: and so we always want to be careful when we're 98 00:06:03,960 --> 00:06:07,280 Speaker 1: talking in ignorance of the facts. You know, we still 99 00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:10,400 Speaker 1: don't know what her story would be. But from where 100 00:06:10,440 --> 00:06:16,640 Speaker 1: we sit, her claim, whatever it is, looks really really 101 00:06:16,839 --> 00:06:20,120 Speaker 1: like a tough sell. The alleged MI mis conduct took 102 00:06:20,160 --> 00:06:23,840 Speaker 1: place over many years. Whatever her motive may have been 103 00:06:23,880 --> 00:06:26,800 Speaker 1: at the beginning, whatever she thought she could achieve at 104 00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:31,520 Speaker 1: the beginning. Clearly there came a time when it's proper 105 00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:34,400 Speaker 1: for a jury to infer beyond a reasonable death that 106 00:06:34,560 --> 00:06:39,400 Speaker 1: she knew she couldn't achieve what she had plied, And 107 00:06:39,480 --> 00:06:43,479 Speaker 1: so it's very, very tough to imagine that her back 108 00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:46,960 Speaker 1: story is going to be convincing. You're exactly right. She 109 00:06:47,320 --> 00:06:52,799 Speaker 1: appears to have been deliberately playing a role. She appears 110 00:06:52,839 --> 00:06:58,040 Speaker 1: to have modeled her behavior as a tech mogul along 111 00:06:58,080 --> 00:07:01,560 Speaker 1: the lines of what she was seeing there in that world. 112 00:07:02,000 --> 00:07:06,839 Speaker 1: She was affecting behaviors that she'd seen other successful CEO 113 00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:10,200 Speaker 1: s u So all of that looks deliberate, and it 114 00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:13,800 Speaker 1: looks like it was put on to defraud people, to 115 00:07:13,920 --> 00:07:17,640 Speaker 1: make them believe in her and give her her money 116 00:07:17,680 --> 00:07:20,880 Speaker 1: because she appeared to be one of them. And the 117 00:07:20,960 --> 00:07:23,280 Speaker 1: other problem that I see for her is if the 118 00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:28,120 Speaker 1: jury will see all of the evidence of the role 119 00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:31,880 Speaker 1: that she played, the artificial ways in which she is 120 00:07:31,920 --> 00:07:36,640 Speaker 1: alleged to have styled herself, they're gonna think, oh, my gosh, 121 00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:40,600 Speaker 1: you know she was lying then, and then they're likely 122 00:07:40,720 --> 00:07:43,920 Speaker 1: to doubt the backstory she's telling now. You know, they 123 00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:46,280 Speaker 1: may just think she was lying then she's lying now, 124 00:07:46,880 --> 00:07:50,480 Speaker 1: So this is an awfully difficult cell, and I take 125 00:07:50,520 --> 00:07:52,680 Speaker 1: it she's going to try to tell some kind of 126 00:07:52,760 --> 00:07:57,080 Speaker 1: story that says, Yep, I did these things, but I 127 00:07:57,160 --> 00:08:01,120 Speaker 1: didn't do them for the purpose of bilking people of 128 00:08:01,160 --> 00:08:04,720 Speaker 1: their money. I did it because I had some kind 129 00:08:04,720 --> 00:08:09,120 Speaker 1: of psychological deficit, you know, some kind of psychological wound 130 00:08:09,640 --> 00:08:11,600 Speaker 1: that I was trying to fill. You know that I 131 00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:14,640 Speaker 1: was trying to please my boyfriend. I was trying to 132 00:08:14,800 --> 00:08:18,520 Speaker 1: make up for loss of affluence in my family when 133 00:08:18,520 --> 00:08:21,840 Speaker 1: I was a child, something like that. Again, it's very, 134 00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:24,000 Speaker 1: very tough from where we sit now to see how 135 00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:26,480 Speaker 1: this claim could succeed. But we don't yet know the 136 00:08:26,560 --> 00:08:29,480 Speaker 1: story she's going to tell. Now you mentioned her boyfriend 137 00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:32,280 Speaker 1: who was accused of the same crime. There has been 138 00:08:32,320 --> 00:08:35,920 Speaker 1: some suggestion that she might paint him as this sort 139 00:08:35,960 --> 00:08:39,839 Speaker 1: of spin gali and that she was under his influence 140 00:08:40,240 --> 00:08:42,600 Speaker 1: and they're not going to be tried together, So that's 141 00:08:42,600 --> 00:08:45,040 Speaker 1: something she could do. How would that help her in 142 00:08:45,040 --> 00:08:48,520 Speaker 1: a criminal case. It's going to be, again, an extremely 143 00:08:48,559 --> 00:08:51,360 Speaker 1: tough sell, and it's hard to know without the facts 144 00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:55,280 Speaker 1: exactly how she would try to present that defense. But 145 00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:59,679 Speaker 1: from reading the news reports, there are suggestions that for 146 00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:05,680 Speaker 1: her boyfriend, who was a top executive in the company, 147 00:09:05,760 --> 00:09:08,679 Speaker 1: whom she had known since she was nineteen years old, 148 00:09:08,760 --> 00:09:11,040 Speaker 1: I think, and he was quite a bit older than she, 149 00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:14,120 Speaker 1: So the idea was that she fell under his influence 150 00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:18,680 Speaker 1: and that she was carrying out a plan that was 151 00:09:18,720 --> 00:09:23,240 Speaker 1: being dictated by him. It's possible that that story is true. 152 00:09:23,800 --> 00:09:28,680 Speaker 1: The question for the jury will be, so what what 153 00:09:28,840 --> 00:09:33,120 Speaker 1: relevance does that story have to her guilt. People frequently 154 00:09:33,200 --> 00:09:37,200 Speaker 1: commit crimes acting under the influence of other people who 155 00:09:37,240 --> 00:09:40,520 Speaker 1: are under various kinds of influences, and it makes no 156 00:09:40,600 --> 00:09:44,840 Speaker 1: difference whatsoever to their liability. So one suggestion that I've 157 00:09:44,840 --> 00:09:49,600 Speaker 1: seen is that her ex boyfriend was a bully, and 158 00:09:49,640 --> 00:09:52,439 Speaker 1: maybe the claim is that he was very violent with her. 159 00:09:52,600 --> 00:09:56,160 Speaker 1: I'm just speculating now, but one argument might be that 160 00:09:56,200 --> 00:09:59,680 Speaker 1: she was so terrified as him that she carried out 161 00:09:59,720 --> 00:10:03,480 Speaker 1: the fraud because she was in fear of suffering further 162 00:10:03,559 --> 00:10:07,440 Speaker 1: abuse at his hands. That's almost an impossible claim to 163 00:10:07,520 --> 00:10:10,320 Speaker 1: mount in any case, but in a case like this 164 00:10:10,559 --> 00:10:14,480 Speaker 1: it looks truly impossible because of the amount of time 165 00:10:14,880 --> 00:10:18,920 Speaker 1: that the fraud occupied. In other words, sometimes defendants can 166 00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:22,480 Speaker 1: claim that they acted under dress. They acted because they 167 00:10:22,520 --> 00:10:25,560 Speaker 1: were afraid that some other powerful person was going to 168 00:10:25,679 --> 00:10:29,280 Speaker 1: harm them physically, really badly. You know, think of committing 169 00:10:29,280 --> 00:10:31,199 Speaker 1: a crime under the threat of death from with a 170 00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:34,000 Speaker 1: gun to the head. But even in those cases where 171 00:10:34,040 --> 00:10:36,199 Speaker 1: someone can show that they were mixed up with a 172 00:10:36,320 --> 00:10:39,240 Speaker 1: character who had threatened to harm them, if you had 173 00:10:39,360 --> 00:10:42,680 Speaker 1: time to go to the police and report that person, 174 00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:45,800 Speaker 1: if there were periods of time in which the person 175 00:10:45,880 --> 00:10:48,439 Speaker 1: didn't have a gun to your head, then the claim 176 00:10:48,480 --> 00:10:51,400 Speaker 1: will not succeed. And we have no evidence here that 177 00:10:51,480 --> 00:10:55,040 Speaker 1: she was committing this fraud under imminent or immediate threats 178 00:10:55,120 --> 00:10:57,679 Speaker 1: from this character. Thanks for being on the show, and 179 00:10:58,280 --> 00:11:01,800 Speaker 1: that's a conflint, A professor to University of Virginia Law School. 180 00:11:03,280 --> 00:11:06,199 Speaker 1: The late Robert Indiana is the pop artist whose Love 181 00:11:06,280 --> 00:11:09,480 Speaker 1: Sculpture became one of the most recognizable artworks of the 182 00:11:09,520 --> 00:11:13,000 Speaker 1: twentieth century, with an estate worth somewhere between fifty and 183 00:11:13,080 --> 00:11:16,000 Speaker 1: ninety million dollars. The legal fight over the rights to 184 00:11:16,040 --> 00:11:19,480 Speaker 1: Indiana's artwork and the control of his legacy has been 185 00:11:19,559 --> 00:11:24,160 Speaker 1: bitter and complicated, including allegations of art fraud and elder abuse, 186 00:11:24,600 --> 00:11:27,160 Speaker 1: but now a step has been taken toward resolution of 187 00:11:27,200 --> 00:11:32,280 Speaker 1: the dispute as Indiana's longtime representative. The Morgan Art Foundation, 188 00:11:32,640 --> 00:11:36,439 Speaker 1: a for profit company which originally brought the lawsuit, reached 189 00:11:36,440 --> 00:11:39,800 Speaker 1: an agreement with the nonprofit that's the sole beneficiary of 190 00:11:39,840 --> 00:11:43,800 Speaker 1: Indiana's a state, the Star of Hope Foundation. My guest 191 00:11:43,880 --> 00:11:47,360 Speaker 1: is the attorney who represents the Morgan Art Foundation, mar 192 00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:51,600 Speaker 1: And Shah, who has the art litigation practice at Quinn Emmanuel. 193 00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:54,760 Speaker 1: There are so many parties involved here, can you tell 194 00:11:54,880 --> 00:11:59,120 Speaker 1: us who the main parties are? Sure? So? The parties 195 00:11:59,160 --> 00:12:02,480 Speaker 1: in this litigation are my clients, who are the Morgan 196 00:12:02,600 --> 00:12:07,120 Speaker 1: Art Foundation and Simon salamkaro Um, who were the artist 197 00:12:07,240 --> 00:12:11,520 Speaker 1: Robert Indiana's patrons and partners on many of his projects 198 00:12:11,600 --> 00:12:15,880 Speaker 1: during his lifetime. The defendants in the case are James Brannon, 199 00:12:16,280 --> 00:12:19,400 Speaker 1: who is the personal representative or in other words, the 200 00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:24,000 Speaker 1: executor of indianas the state. Michael Mackenzie and his company 201 00:12:24,040 --> 00:12:28,439 Speaker 1: American Image Art, who produced certain works that were attributed 202 00:12:28,480 --> 00:12:31,720 Speaker 1: to Robert Indiana during the later years of his life. 203 00:12:32,240 --> 00:12:36,600 Speaker 1: And Jamie Thomas, who was Indiana's caretaker on the island 204 00:12:36,640 --> 00:12:39,040 Speaker 1: of vinyl Haven where he lived during the later years 205 00:12:39,080 --> 00:12:43,120 Speaker 1: of his life. So you initially sued Indiana as well. 206 00:12:44,400 --> 00:12:47,120 Speaker 1: We did, and the reason we did that was just 207 00:12:47,240 --> 00:12:50,480 Speaker 1: for technical legal reasons, even the structure of our my 208 00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:54,080 Speaker 1: client's contracts with Robert Indianna. But the intent in filing 209 00:12:54,080 --> 00:12:57,280 Speaker 1: the lawsuit, which you'll have to remember was filed when 210 00:12:57,320 --> 00:13:00,920 Speaker 1: the artist was alive, was really intend to protect the 211 00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:05,080 Speaker 1: artists and to protect his works against exploitation by we 212 00:13:05,160 --> 00:13:08,480 Speaker 1: believed Michael mackenzie and Jamie Thomas, who was then acting 213 00:13:08,520 --> 00:13:12,439 Speaker 1: as his power of attorney. Why did the Morgan Foundation 214 00:13:13,440 --> 00:13:16,280 Speaker 1: decide that it wanted to file or needed to file 215 00:13:16,280 --> 00:13:20,479 Speaker 1: a lawsuit. So, as part of their work with Indiana, 216 00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:24,760 Speaker 1: Indiana and Morgan had signed a series of contracts many 217 00:13:24,800 --> 00:13:28,360 Speaker 1: many years ago that gave Morgan the rights to certain 218 00:13:28,360 --> 00:13:31,559 Speaker 1: of Indiana's works, the rights to police the intellectual property 219 00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:34,360 Speaker 1: in those works, and the exclusive rights to fabricate and 220 00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:38,680 Speaker 1: sell certain additioned works. And Morgan Art Foundation and my 221 00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:42,040 Speaker 1: and and Mr Salamakaro and his family were very very 222 00:13:42,040 --> 00:13:45,719 Speaker 1: close to the artists um for decades and worked with 223 00:13:45,800 --> 00:13:49,200 Speaker 1: him in close collaboration during that whole time. And in 224 00:13:49,240 --> 00:13:52,040 Speaker 1: a couple of years prior to the artists stuffed, they 225 00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:55,160 Speaker 1: noticed a real shift in their ability to contact the 226 00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:58,080 Speaker 1: artists and to work with the artists. His health was 227 00:13:58,120 --> 00:14:01,800 Speaker 1: failing and his care had been taken over by a 228 00:14:01,880 --> 00:14:05,880 Speaker 1: new assistant who is Jamie Thomas, who my clients felt 229 00:14:05,920 --> 00:14:09,920 Speaker 1: were was progressively isolating the artist from his friends and 230 00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:13,880 Speaker 1: supporters and increasingly controlling his affairs um. And at the 231 00:14:13,920 --> 00:14:16,440 Speaker 1: same time as this was happening, my clients and many 232 00:14:16,480 --> 00:14:18,600 Speaker 1: others in the art market noticed that there were a 233 00:14:18,640 --> 00:14:23,040 Speaker 1: lot of new, low quality reproductions of Indiana's work that 234 00:14:23,080 --> 00:14:25,120 Speaker 1: we're starting to flood the market that nobody had ever 235 00:14:25,120 --> 00:14:28,080 Speaker 1: seen before and didn't believe we're really by the artists. 236 00:14:28,560 --> 00:14:31,520 Speaker 1: And so these two circumstances kind of consulated, and my 237 00:14:31,680 --> 00:14:35,280 Speaker 1: clients were really only able to visit the artist once 238 00:14:35,360 --> 00:14:37,720 Speaker 1: in the years before his death. They were they were 239 00:14:37,800 --> 00:14:40,960 Speaker 1: precluded from seeing him. Jamie Thomas barred them from coming 240 00:14:40,960 --> 00:14:43,080 Speaker 1: to visit him or talking to him, and when they 241 00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:46,880 Speaker 1: visited him, they found him in extremely poor health, living 242 00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:50,640 Speaker 1: in smaller and seemingly unaware of these things that were 243 00:14:50,640 --> 00:14:54,800 Speaker 1: going on um And so they ultimately filed the lawsuit 244 00:14:54,880 --> 00:14:57,320 Speaker 1: because they felt like they had no choice in order 245 00:14:57,320 --> 00:15:01,280 Speaker 1: to protect his art and his market from these quality infringements, 246 00:15:01,280 --> 00:15:04,600 Speaker 1: but also infringe own UM the rights that my clients 247 00:15:04,600 --> 00:15:07,280 Speaker 1: had under contracts with in Vienna, and also to bring 248 00:15:07,320 --> 00:15:10,880 Speaker 1: to light the condition that they had found him in 249 00:15:10,920 --> 00:15:13,600 Speaker 1: and what they believed to be the mistreatment and isolation 250 00:15:13,680 --> 00:15:17,600 Speaker 1: of him is in his elder years and unfortunately UM, 251 00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:20,400 Speaker 1: as it turned out, the lawsuit was filed just one 252 00:15:20,480 --> 00:15:24,120 Speaker 1: day before he ultimately passed away UM. So sadly they 253 00:15:24,120 --> 00:15:28,000 Speaker 1: were not able to help him personally during his lifetime UM, 254 00:15:28,080 --> 00:15:29,800 Speaker 1: but it was their hope that they would be able 255 00:15:29,840 --> 00:15:32,200 Speaker 1: to help and protect his legacy and the legacy of 256 00:15:32,280 --> 00:15:36,400 Speaker 1: his art UM from these low quality and fringements going forward. 257 00:15:36,800 --> 00:15:41,560 Speaker 1: So tell us about the allegations of the lawsuit. So 258 00:15:41,720 --> 00:15:45,720 Speaker 1: the law the lawsuit originally UM, which again was filed 259 00:15:45,760 --> 00:15:49,400 Speaker 1: while the artist was alive, alleged that in the later 260 00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:51,840 Speaker 1: years of his life, as I said, he had been 261 00:15:51,920 --> 00:15:57,920 Speaker 1: isolated and was being controlled by his caretaker UM, who 262 00:15:58,040 --> 00:16:02,160 Speaker 1: was essentially collaborating. It was alleged with Michael mackenzie and 263 00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:06,360 Speaker 1: his company American Image Arts, who were art publishers, and 264 00:16:06,440 --> 00:16:09,680 Speaker 1: what they did was produced certain additioned works which were 265 00:16:09,680 --> 00:16:14,920 Speaker 1: mostly prints UM of Robert Indiana Images UM and the 266 00:16:15,000 --> 00:16:19,240 Speaker 1: lawsuit alleged that these prints that they produced, uh, that 267 00:16:19,320 --> 00:16:23,280 Speaker 1: were attributed to Robert Indiana were essentially forgeries, that they 268 00:16:23,320 --> 00:16:27,320 Speaker 1: either were not authorized by the artists or were authorized 269 00:16:27,360 --> 00:16:31,320 Speaker 1: by him only under dress um, that they infringed on 270 00:16:31,480 --> 00:16:35,280 Speaker 1: copyrights and other rights that my clients had exclusively under 271 00:16:35,320 --> 00:16:38,280 Speaker 1: their contracts with the artists to produce and promote and 272 00:16:38,360 --> 00:16:43,040 Speaker 1: sell works that contain these images, um. And that they 273 00:16:43,080 --> 00:16:45,880 Speaker 1: you know, that they were damaging his art market um 274 00:16:46,080 --> 00:16:49,600 Speaker 1: and were essentially illegal reproductions of his work. It seems 275 00:16:49,640 --> 00:16:54,200 Speaker 1: as if this legal fight got bitter and nasty pretty quickly. 276 00:16:54,760 --> 00:16:58,400 Speaker 1: Is that indicative of these kinds of fights and or 277 00:16:58,640 --> 00:17:02,800 Speaker 1: was this particularly nasty? Yes, you know, I think it's 278 00:17:02,800 --> 00:17:06,640 Speaker 1: an unfortunate fact that artists, the States and foundations very 279 00:17:06,720 --> 00:17:10,560 Speaker 1: commonly encounter incredible difficulty after an artist dies, and they 280 00:17:10,640 --> 00:17:14,480 Speaker 1: often become embroiled in power struggles and litigations after an 281 00:17:14,560 --> 00:17:18,720 Speaker 1: artist's death, and surprisingly few of them are successful over 282 00:17:18,760 --> 00:17:21,160 Speaker 1: the long term. And I do think this case was 283 00:17:20,640 --> 00:17:24,440 Speaker 1: a prime example of that. It's it's an unusual example 284 00:17:24,480 --> 00:17:26,159 Speaker 1: of that in the way it developed, but it is 285 00:17:26,200 --> 00:17:29,359 Speaker 1: not unusual in the art world. In the art world, 286 00:17:29,720 --> 00:17:32,120 Speaker 1: and I just want you to respond to some claims 287 00:17:32,160 --> 00:17:36,200 Speaker 1: that were made against the foundation that you hadn't properly 288 00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:40,800 Speaker 1: compensated Indiana for sales of his work, and you unfairly 289 00:17:40,880 --> 00:17:47,240 Speaker 1: interfered with his business and some unauthorized reproductions. Yes, those 290 00:17:47,280 --> 00:17:50,679 Speaker 1: were all untrue, UM, and discovery in the case I 291 00:17:50,800 --> 00:17:52,680 Speaker 1: you know, I believe revealed that, and if the case 292 00:17:52,760 --> 00:17:55,840 Speaker 1: moved forward, that will become plain um at trial. But 293 00:17:56,359 --> 00:18:00,919 Speaker 1: my clients always provided um the accounting to Indiana that 294 00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:03,240 Speaker 1: they were required to under their contracts and that he 295 00:18:03,320 --> 00:18:06,440 Speaker 1: asked for. Um. They always paid him all the royalties 296 00:18:06,720 --> 00:18:08,800 Speaker 1: that he would do under the sales they made of 297 00:18:08,920 --> 00:18:12,480 Speaker 1: his works. Um. They did this for literally decades. He 298 00:18:12,600 --> 00:18:14,840 Speaker 1: you know, in close collaboration with him, talk to him 299 00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:17,560 Speaker 1: all the time. He never complained about it. Um. And 300 00:18:17,600 --> 00:18:20,600 Speaker 1: the projects that they undertook were undertaken with the express 301 00:18:20,640 --> 00:18:25,160 Speaker 1: permission and approval and cooperation of the artists during his law. Now, 302 00:18:25,359 --> 00:18:29,160 Speaker 1: how did the main attorney general get involved in this, 303 00:18:29,640 --> 00:18:34,359 Speaker 1: you know, dispute between private parties? Right? Well, in Maine, 304 00:18:34,400 --> 00:18:38,800 Speaker 1: the Attorney General's office has oversight functions over main nonprofit 305 00:18:38,920 --> 00:18:43,600 Speaker 1: organizations and the foundation that was established after the artist's death, 306 00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:46,360 Speaker 1: that was the sole beneficiary in his will of all 307 00:18:46,440 --> 00:18:49,480 Speaker 1: his assets and had a charitable mission to promote his 308 00:18:49,560 --> 00:18:52,400 Speaker 1: legacy going forward. Is a five O one C three 309 00:18:52,400 --> 00:18:54,879 Speaker 1: nonprofit organized under the laws of Maine, and so it 310 00:18:54,920 --> 00:18:57,639 Speaker 1: comes under the oversight powers of the main Attorney General. 311 00:18:58,359 --> 00:19:01,040 Speaker 1: And how much is at stake here, I've heard different 312 00:19:01,119 --> 00:19:05,800 Speaker 1: figures for what the estate is valued at I have 313 00:19:05,960 --> 00:19:08,640 Speaker 1: as well, And frankly, I don't have much insight into 314 00:19:08,680 --> 00:19:10,600 Speaker 1: what is the real value of these states, So I 315 00:19:10,760 --> 00:19:13,040 Speaker 1: probably can't tell you more than you read publicly. But 316 00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:16,480 Speaker 1: I think public estimates are somewhere between fifty and ninety million, 317 00:19:16,520 --> 00:19:19,320 Speaker 1: and I would say that's that's very likely correct. Tell 318 00:19:19,400 --> 00:19:23,240 Speaker 1: us about this settlement. So it's not a settlement per se, 319 00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:25,840 Speaker 1: and I can get into the kind of weird complexity 320 00:19:25,880 --> 00:19:28,119 Speaker 1: of that if if you'd be interested. But what it 321 00:19:28,240 --> 00:19:31,800 Speaker 1: is is an agreement between my clients, the Morgan Art Foundation, 322 00:19:32,160 --> 00:19:36,000 Speaker 1: UH and Simon Salamacaro and his family, and the Star 323 00:19:36,119 --> 00:19:40,080 Speaker 1: of Hope Foundation, which is the foundation that was established 324 00:19:40,800 --> 00:19:42,840 Speaker 1: for the terms of Indiana as well. That is the 325 00:19:42,880 --> 00:19:45,719 Speaker 1: sole beneficiary to all his assets under his will and 326 00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:49,040 Speaker 1: has the charitable mission going forward to promote his Works 327 00:19:49,040 --> 00:19:53,320 Speaker 1: and Legacy UM, and those parties agreed. So the Star 328 00:19:53,400 --> 00:19:55,960 Speaker 1: of Hope Foundation is not a party to this litigation, 329 00:19:56,000 --> 00:19:57,919 Speaker 1: but it is the sole beneficiary to the end of 330 00:19:57,920 --> 00:20:01,000 Speaker 1: the state UM. And so the Star of Hope agreed 331 00:20:01,040 --> 00:20:04,359 Speaker 1: directly with my clients outside the confines of the litigation 332 00:20:05,000 --> 00:20:10,240 Speaker 1: to uh productive business resolution and relationship going forward. And 333 00:20:10,280 --> 00:20:14,280 Speaker 1: the agreement governs the party's respective rights and obligations with 334 00:20:14,320 --> 00:20:18,800 Speaker 1: respect to Indiana's works and legacy, both in resolving past 335 00:20:18,880 --> 00:20:23,440 Speaker 1: issues and UM to move forward productively in the future. 336 00:20:23,800 --> 00:20:27,359 Speaker 1: So the litigation is ongoing. Then the litigation is ongoing. 337 00:20:27,480 --> 00:20:30,680 Speaker 1: But what we have done is we on Monday, as 338 00:20:30,680 --> 00:20:34,560 Speaker 1: a result of this agreement, which was signed on Friday last, 339 00:20:35,080 --> 00:20:38,919 Speaker 1: we filed a motion in the litigation to dismiss the 340 00:20:39,160 --> 00:20:42,919 Speaker 1: estate claims against my clients as moot. Because what the 341 00:20:42,920 --> 00:20:46,280 Speaker 1: settlement with the Star of Hope does is conclusively resolve 342 00:20:46,440 --> 00:20:49,359 Speaker 1: all of the outstanding claims that were an issue between 343 00:20:49,400 --> 00:20:51,760 Speaker 1: the estate and my clients in the litigation and makes 344 00:20:51,800 --> 00:20:54,600 Speaker 1: them so. It is our hope and we believe UM 345 00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:57,280 Speaker 1: that what should happen in the best interests of the 346 00:20:57,359 --> 00:20:59,840 Speaker 1: artists and legally is for those claims to be dismissed 347 00:20:59,840 --> 00:21:01,440 Speaker 1: and part of the litigation to come to an end. 348 00:21:01,720 --> 00:21:06,200 Speaker 1: So in response to this, the state Attorney, James Brannon 349 00:21:06,280 --> 00:21:09,119 Speaker 1: said he was preparing to move forward with plans to 350 00:21:09,160 --> 00:21:11,840 Speaker 1: depose key figures in the case and to take the 351 00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:15,159 Speaker 1: case to trial. Yes, I did read that statement by 352 00:21:15,240 --> 00:21:17,399 Speaker 1: him as well. UM, And I can't tell you what 353 00:21:17,760 --> 00:21:21,480 Speaker 1: intentions are. UM. I can tell you that his apparent 354 00:21:21,560 --> 00:21:24,359 Speaker 1: strategy and the litigation has long been at odds with 355 00:21:24,400 --> 00:21:29,080 Speaker 1: the wishes of the foundation. The Foundation has directly instructed 356 00:21:29,160 --> 00:21:32,040 Speaker 1: him to settle the litigation many times he has refused 357 00:21:32,080 --> 00:21:34,000 Speaker 1: to do so. And that's how we ended up where 358 00:21:34,040 --> 00:21:36,960 Speaker 1: we are now, which is a litigation that is extremely 359 00:21:37,040 --> 00:21:41,480 Speaker 1: costly and wasteful um to all parties, yet with both 360 00:21:41,520 --> 00:21:43,760 Speaker 1: of the parties who are real parties and interests, wanting 361 00:21:43,760 --> 00:21:47,040 Speaker 1: to settle it and wanting to move forward productively. UM. 362 00:21:47,080 --> 00:21:49,120 Speaker 1: And which is how we ended up with an agreement 363 00:21:49,160 --> 00:21:52,480 Speaker 1: directly with the Star of Hope Foundation. UM. I can 364 00:21:52,600 --> 00:21:56,160 Speaker 1: tell you June that since Mr Brandon made that statement, 365 00:21:56,200 --> 00:21:58,800 Speaker 1: we have in fact postponed for a small period of 366 00:21:58,840 --> 00:22:01,640 Speaker 1: time the depositions that were supposed to be taken this week, 367 00:22:01,680 --> 00:22:04,280 Speaker 1: so that they're not actually going forward right now. It's 368 00:22:04,320 --> 00:22:09,000 Speaker 1: also the press. Harold reported that the art publisher Michael 369 00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:13,719 Speaker 1: mackenzie denounced the agreement, saying it smells bad. That's like 370 00:22:13,760 --> 00:22:16,000 Speaker 1: saying I just made a deal with the devil. He 371 00:22:16,040 --> 00:22:17,879 Speaker 1: said when I go to hell, he's not going to 372 00:22:17,920 --> 00:22:22,880 Speaker 1: have it that hot. Yes, I read that also. Um, 373 00:22:22,920 --> 00:22:26,440 Speaker 1: you know he uh, he has not seen the agreement. Um. 374 00:22:26,440 --> 00:22:29,200 Speaker 1: He's not a party to the agreement. I can't speculate 375 00:22:29,240 --> 00:22:30,960 Speaker 1: on the reasons why he may or may not like it, 376 00:22:31,080 --> 00:22:33,800 Speaker 1: but he has been known to make very inflamatory statements 377 00:22:34,080 --> 00:22:37,520 Speaker 1: in the past against my clients. They're all completely unfounded. Um. 378 00:22:38,200 --> 00:22:40,920 Speaker 1: But you know that's where we are. You know, it's 379 00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:45,200 Speaker 1: hard for an outside observer to understand, you know, how 380 00:22:45,200 --> 00:22:49,080 Speaker 1: this agreement settles things when the defendants in the case 381 00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:53,600 Speaker 1: say it hasn't. Yeah, it's a great question. Um. And 382 00:22:53,640 --> 00:22:56,080 Speaker 1: it is a bit of legal complexity there. So it 383 00:22:56,240 --> 00:22:59,720 Speaker 1: is um well established law, as we've set fourth in 384 00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:02,800 Speaker 1: our ocean that again, this is not a settlement of 385 00:23:02,840 --> 00:23:05,159 Speaker 1: the case because settlement is you typically think of it 386 00:23:05,720 --> 00:23:09,680 Speaker 1: occurs between two parties to the litigation. Um, in settlement 387 00:23:09,800 --> 00:23:12,320 Speaker 1: of the litigation claims, and that's not what's happened here. 388 00:23:12,359 --> 00:23:15,320 Speaker 1: What's happened here is that our client, who is the 389 00:23:15,359 --> 00:23:18,680 Speaker 1: party to the litigation, and a third party have come 390 00:23:18,760 --> 00:23:23,560 Speaker 1: to a consensual resolution that essentially renders moot all of 391 00:23:24,080 --> 00:23:27,560 Speaker 1: the dispute between the estate and my clients in the 392 00:23:27,640 --> 00:23:32,040 Speaker 1: litigation UM. And it is well established law that a 393 00:23:32,160 --> 00:23:36,680 Speaker 1: number of outside event events UM can have the effect 394 00:23:36,880 --> 00:23:40,000 Speaker 1: during the pendency of a litigation of rendering the dispute 395 00:23:40,080 --> 00:23:43,399 Speaker 1: moot um. And a court, a federal court UM like 396 00:23:43,440 --> 00:23:46,120 Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York, who has the case here, 397 00:23:46,840 --> 00:23:50,399 Speaker 1: is empowered and has jurisdiction only to hear disputes to 398 00:23:50,520 --> 00:23:54,840 Speaker 1: present a quote live case or controversy, meaning they can 399 00:23:54,880 --> 00:23:58,679 Speaker 1: only hear issues that are actually live disputes and where 400 00:23:58,840 --> 00:24:01,760 Speaker 1: the court's judgment will actually have an effect on the party. 401 00:24:02,240 --> 00:24:05,920 Speaker 1: And if anything changes during the litigation UM that makes 402 00:24:05,960 --> 00:24:08,800 Speaker 1: the dispute no longer active and makes it such a 403 00:24:09,160 --> 00:24:13,920 Speaker 1: court judgment will be irrelevant or ineffective, then the court 404 00:24:14,040 --> 00:24:17,280 Speaker 1: loses jurisdiction over the case and has to dismiss it. 405 00:24:17,359 --> 00:24:20,680 Speaker 1: And that is essentially what's happened here. UM. For example, 406 00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:23,919 Speaker 1: you know this happened in cases where one party sues 407 00:24:23,960 --> 00:24:27,840 Speaker 1: another over the disclosure of documents, and then a third 408 00:24:27,920 --> 00:24:31,200 Speaker 1: party agency releases the documents during the litigation, and even 409 00:24:31,240 --> 00:24:34,600 Speaker 1: though the third party agency isn't a party to be lawsuit, 410 00:24:35,000 --> 00:24:37,960 Speaker 1: that action has rendered the claims moods, and then those 411 00:24:37,960 --> 00:24:40,080 Speaker 1: claims will be dismissed. So, you know, it's not the 412 00:24:40,119 --> 00:24:43,080 Speaker 1: exact same situation here, but it's the same principle. Is 413 00:24:43,119 --> 00:24:46,360 Speaker 1: this unique in any way in an art litigation fight? 414 00:24:47,680 --> 00:24:50,439 Speaker 1: You know, it is fairly unique. This is the first 415 00:24:50,440 --> 00:24:53,840 Speaker 1: time that I'm aware, um, that a solution like this 416 00:24:54,080 --> 00:24:58,920 Speaker 1: has been reached. I think it is a fairly unprecedented result, um. 417 00:24:59,600 --> 00:25:03,280 Speaker 1: But it came about due to the unique situation that 418 00:25:03,320 --> 00:25:05,679 Speaker 1: we found ourselves in in this litigation, which is that 419 00:25:06,640 --> 00:25:09,320 Speaker 1: the wishes of the artists and the wishes of the 420 00:25:09,400 --> 00:25:12,800 Speaker 1: foundation that he left behind were simply not being respected 421 00:25:12,800 --> 00:25:16,080 Speaker 1: by the executive executor of his estate. And it was 422 00:25:16,119 --> 00:25:19,480 Speaker 1: the executor who was in charge of the litigation um 423 00:25:19,560 --> 00:25:22,520 Speaker 1: and who refused instructions by the foundation to settle the 424 00:25:22,600 --> 00:25:28,880 Speaker 1: litigation um and instead spent millions of dollars of estate funds, 425 00:25:28,960 --> 00:25:31,800 Speaker 1: drained the artist bank account of literally all of the 426 00:25:31,840 --> 00:25:35,040 Speaker 1: money he left behind, sold many millions of dollars worth 427 00:25:35,520 --> 00:25:37,399 Speaker 1: of works of arts that had been housed in the 428 00:25:37,480 --> 00:25:39,960 Speaker 1: artists private collection, all of which were supposed to go 429 00:25:40,040 --> 00:25:45,240 Speaker 1: to the foundation to fund UH and enable its charitable mission. UM. 430 00:25:45,320 --> 00:25:48,680 Speaker 1: And so you have an executor who was really kind 431 00:25:48,720 --> 00:25:52,119 Speaker 1: of running rampant in the litigation, spending a ton of 432 00:25:52,160 --> 00:25:56,119 Speaker 1: the estates on litigation sees against the express wishes of 433 00:25:56,200 --> 00:25:58,720 Speaker 1: both the artists and the Artists Foundation who were the 434 00:25:58,720 --> 00:26:02,159 Speaker 1: beneficiary of eight UM. And it's, I would say, is 435 00:26:02,280 --> 00:26:06,680 Speaker 1: fairly unusual and with an unexpected situation that we found 436 00:26:06,720 --> 00:26:09,919 Speaker 1: ourselves in, and that's what led to this somewhat unprecedented results. 437 00:26:10,160 --> 00:26:12,040 Speaker 1: So let me ask you this. You know, there are 438 00:26:12,040 --> 00:26:15,439 Speaker 1: a lot of legal fights over artists work, as you know, 439 00:26:15,920 --> 00:26:19,240 Speaker 1: in this case, it seems like Indiana did have things 440 00:26:19,359 --> 00:26:23,560 Speaker 1: in place. I was thinking forward, but yet it still 441 00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:27,960 Speaker 1: fell apart. How do you prevent that them happening? You know, 442 00:26:28,160 --> 00:26:30,439 Speaker 1: I don't know how you prevent that from happening. I 443 00:26:30,440 --> 00:26:34,720 Speaker 1: would say, it really behooves artists, and they very rarely 444 00:26:34,760 --> 00:26:37,800 Speaker 1: do this during their lifetime, which is why you end 445 00:26:37,880 --> 00:26:40,760 Speaker 1: up with issues like this UM. But it behooves artists 446 00:26:40,840 --> 00:26:45,480 Speaker 1: during their lifetime especial if they've become well renowned during 447 00:26:45,520 --> 00:26:48,760 Speaker 1: their lifetime for their art, to really put in place 448 00:26:48,840 --> 00:26:52,520 Speaker 1: an active foundation that is set up during their lifetime, 449 00:26:52,600 --> 00:26:55,280 Speaker 1: to appoint an executor of their estate who they can 450 00:26:55,359 --> 00:26:58,080 Speaker 1: trust and they know will fulfill their wishes. You know, 451 00:26:58,119 --> 00:27:00,200 Speaker 1: it's very hard to control the actions of pep well 452 00:27:00,600 --> 00:27:03,000 Speaker 1: after the artist passes away. I don't know what you 453 00:27:03,040 --> 00:27:06,840 Speaker 1: can do to prevent that, um, but I do think 454 00:27:06,880 --> 00:27:09,359 Speaker 1: it is very worthwhile. And again this this is something 455 00:27:09,400 --> 00:27:13,440 Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily uh go in tandem with the creative 456 00:27:13,480 --> 00:27:16,520 Speaker 1: personality and someone that is focused on on creating art 457 00:27:16,600 --> 00:27:20,320 Speaker 1: during their life rather than than leaving the archives and 458 00:27:20,440 --> 00:27:23,959 Speaker 1: the art and the foundation and in functioning order. But um, 459 00:27:24,160 --> 00:27:26,399 Speaker 1: you know, I think the more artists can do to 460 00:27:26,480 --> 00:27:29,480 Speaker 1: set up the structures that will be necessary to continue 461 00:27:29,520 --> 00:27:31,920 Speaker 1: their legacy after their death, and to do that well 462 00:27:31,960 --> 00:27:35,560 Speaker 1: in advance during their lifetime, probably the less likelihood of 463 00:27:35,640 --> 00:27:39,280 Speaker 1: problems like this we will see. Thanks Maren. That's Maren Shaw, 464 00:27:39,440 --> 00:27:42,159 Speaker 1: a partner at Quinn Emanuel. And that's it for the 465 00:27:42,320 --> 00:27:45,320 Speaker 1: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grasso. Thanks 466 00:27:45,320 --> 00:27:47,760 Speaker 1: so much for listening, and please remember to tune to 467 00:27:47,760 --> 00:27:50,359 Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm Eastern, 468 00:27:50,560 --> 00:27:51,760 Speaker 1: right here on Bloomberg Radio.