1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,240 --> 00:00:12,680
Speaker 2: I was praised to see he reached the firm conclusion

3
00:00:13,320 --> 00:00:17,439
Speaker 2: that no charges should be brought against me in this case.

4
00:00:18,400 --> 00:00:23,200
Speaker 2: This was an exhaustive investigation going back more than forty years.

5
00:00:23,560 --> 00:00:27,280
Speaker 1: Special Counsel Robert Hurd did not charge President Joe Biden

6
00:00:27,600 --> 00:00:32,400
Speaker 1: after finding he knowingly stored and disclosed classified documents in

7
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:37,040
Speaker 1: unsecured locations at his homes in Virginia and Delaware, concluding

8
00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:40,680
Speaker 1: that the evidence did not establish Biden's guilt beyond a

9
00:00:40,720 --> 00:00:43,960
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt. And if the four hundred page report had

10
00:00:44,080 --> 00:00:47,599
Speaker 1: stopped with those legal conclusions, it probably would have been

11
00:00:47,640 --> 00:00:50,959
Speaker 1: the end of the matter. But the Special Council included

12
00:00:51,000 --> 00:00:55,080
Speaker 1: what many Democrats see as gratuitous swipes at Biden's memory,

13
00:00:55,520 --> 00:01:00,440
Speaker 1: in particular saying quote, we have also considered that at trial,

14
00:01:00,600 --> 00:01:04,120
Speaker 1: mister Biden would likely present himself to a jury as

15
00:01:04,120 --> 00:01:07,400
Speaker 1: he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic,

16
00:01:07,600 --> 00:01:10,679
Speaker 1: well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.

17
00:01:11,480 --> 00:01:13,320
Speaker 2: My memory, take a look at what I've done since

18
00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:15,759
Speaker 2: I become president. None of you thought I could pass

19
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:18,119
Speaker 2: any of the things I got passed how'd that happen?

20
00:01:18,600 --> 00:01:22,360
Speaker 1: Of course, former President Donald Trump is facing criminal charges

21
00:01:22,400 --> 00:01:25,920
Speaker 1: for his mishandling of classified documents, and he called for

22
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:29,200
Speaker 1: the charges against him to be dropped as well. If

23
00:01:29,200 --> 00:01:33,720
Speaker 1: Biden is not going to be charged, he said, that's

24
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:34,280
Speaker 1: up to them.

25
00:01:34,319 --> 00:01:36,120
Speaker 2: You know. Look, if he's not going to be charged,

26
00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:38,120
Speaker 2: that's up to them.

27
00:01:38,680 --> 00:01:40,600
Speaker 3: But then I should not be charged.

28
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:44,920
Speaker 1: My guest is national security expert Brad Moss, a partner

29
00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:49,200
Speaker 1: at Mark Zaid. So, Brad, did Biden have classified documents

30
00:01:49,240 --> 00:01:52,600
Speaker 1: about the Afghanistan war? Is that basically it? And what

31
00:01:52,720 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 1: classified ranking do they have?

32
00:01:55,680 --> 00:01:57,960
Speaker 3: So the records that, as far as I understand, were

33
00:01:58,000 --> 00:02:02,440
Speaker 3: found could certainly have implicated very sensitive information in terms

34
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:06,680
Speaker 3: of US government defense policy and true strategy, things along

35
00:02:06,680 --> 00:02:08,240
Speaker 3: those lines. And as far as we can tell, at

36
00:02:08,320 --> 00:02:11,000
Speaker 3: least some of the records that were found between the

37
00:02:11,280 --> 00:02:15,359
Speaker 3: Biden House and then in the different facilities were classified

38
00:02:15,440 --> 00:02:18,000
Speaker 3: up to top secret. So it's not as if this

39
00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:21,679
Speaker 3: was not legitimately sensitive classified information. They never should have

40
00:02:21,720 --> 00:02:23,760
Speaker 3: been any of those places. They always should have been

41
00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:27,360
Speaker 3: returned to a proper classified facility, and the President should

42
00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:30,160
Speaker 3: be a little bit ashamed for that. But in terms

43
00:02:30,200 --> 00:02:33,240
Speaker 3: of the substance of what these documents appeared to have been,

44
00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:36,120
Speaker 3: particularly from his time as vice president. It appears to

45
00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:39,560
Speaker 3: be things that he personally created, but then you know,

46
00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:42,639
Speaker 3: quite possibly not realizing the classification rules because he never

47
00:02:42,720 --> 00:02:45,080
Speaker 3: worked in the executive branch as anything other than as

48
00:02:45,160 --> 00:02:47,360
Speaker 3: vice president. He took them home with him, and at

49
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:49,600
Speaker 3: the time he probably could because the government would have

50
00:02:49,639 --> 00:02:52,920
Speaker 3: covered with proper facilities while he was vice president. But

51
00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:55,919
Speaker 3: once that changed, it wasn't properly returned to storage the

52
00:02:55,960 --> 00:02:57,800
Speaker 3: way it was supposed to be. It was things like

53
00:02:58,160 --> 00:03:01,160
Speaker 3: a memo he authored or brought Obama when Joe Biden

54
00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:03,880
Speaker 3: was Vice president and Obama was president. It was handwritten

55
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:07,040
Speaker 3: note that Biden took based off classified documents. Those should

56
00:03:07,080 --> 00:03:10,000
Speaker 3: never be removed from a classified storage facility. The fact

57
00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 3: they were is embarrassing.

58
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:14,920
Speaker 1: He did tell a ghost writer that he had just

59
00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:19,200
Speaker 1: found all this classified stuff downstairs and that some of

60
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:22,640
Speaker 1: what he told him may be classified, so be careful.

61
00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:26,840
Speaker 1: So does that show that he knew that he had

62
00:03:26,840 --> 00:03:28,040
Speaker 1: classified documents?

63
00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:31,120
Speaker 3: So this kind of addressed a lot in the Special

64
00:03:31,120 --> 00:03:35,760
Speaker 3: Council's report. The only evidence that Joe Biden was aware

65
00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:40,360
Speaker 3: that documents he still had after leaving the vice presidency

66
00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:43,680
Speaker 3: were classified and were in his personal possession. Are those

67
00:03:43,720 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 3: eight words, he uttered to the ghost writer of I

68
00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:49,200
Speaker 3: just found and classified stuff in the attic or the basement,

69
00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:49,960
Speaker 3: whatever it was.

70
00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:50,960
Speaker 4: That's it.

71
00:03:51,040 --> 00:03:55,560
Speaker 3: The Special Council could not find any other evidence, from witnesses,

72
00:03:55,560 --> 00:04:00,520
Speaker 3: from documentation, anything to corroborate the idea that Biden actually

73
00:04:00,520 --> 00:04:04,360
Speaker 3: found something in twenty seventeen, that the documents were in

74
00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:06,920
Speaker 3: them fact classified, that they were in fact the same

75
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:10,400
Speaker 3: documents that were ultimately recovered. And so that became part

76
00:04:10,400 --> 00:04:13,240
Speaker 3: of the problem was there was no meat on that bone.

77
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:16,480
Speaker 3: It could have been nothing more on an erroneous comment

78
00:04:16,640 --> 00:04:20,240
Speaker 3: by President Biden that was not actually based on actual

79
00:04:20,279 --> 00:04:24,359
Speaker 3: classified documents. They couldn't find any proof to substantiate that remark.

80
00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:28,839
Speaker 3: And in terms of what Joe Biden said to the

81
00:04:28,839 --> 00:04:31,880
Speaker 3: ghostwriter about whether or not the information he was providing

82
00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:35,760
Speaker 3: could be classified, the dirtiest but most openly known secret

83
00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:39,359
Speaker 3: within the US government is that when former government officials

84
00:04:39,440 --> 00:04:42,039
Speaker 3: go and write their books, none of him write these

85
00:04:42,040 --> 00:04:45,640
Speaker 3: things themselves. They all have ghostwriters. They all spill secrets

86
00:04:45,640 --> 00:04:48,600
Speaker 3: to the ghostwriters. They're not supposed to do it, but

87
00:04:48,800 --> 00:04:51,760
Speaker 3: everybody does this, and the US government kind of says,

88
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:54,840
Speaker 3: we'll let you go with that, so long as you know,

89
00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:58,240
Speaker 3: the books themselves ultimately get screened with classified information.

90
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:05,640
Speaker 1: The conclusion was that Biden wilfully retained and disclosed classified materials,

91
00:05:06,080 --> 00:05:09,760
Speaker 1: but her couldn't prove that corex.

92
00:05:09,839 --> 00:05:12,279
Speaker 3: He couldn't prove that he had wilfully done it in

93
00:05:12,279 --> 00:05:15,960
Speaker 3: the sense that Biden was ever truly aware that there

94
00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:20,279
Speaker 3: was classified documents still in his possession post Obama administration.

95
00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:23,320
Speaker 3: The only evidence were those eight words to the ghostwriter.

96
00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:26,200
Speaker 3: There was no other evidence of it. And even if

97
00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:28,160
Speaker 3: they could have proven that, and this is what a

98
00:05:28,160 --> 00:05:31,080
Speaker 3: special Council messed up the legal analysis. Even if they

99
00:05:31,080 --> 00:05:33,720
Speaker 3: could prove intent deply by the fact that the documents

100
00:05:33,720 --> 00:05:37,400
Speaker 3: were there, the Espionage Act provision, which the same one

101
00:05:37,400 --> 00:05:40,720
Speaker 3: that's being used against Donald Trump, has an additional caveat.

102
00:05:41,160 --> 00:05:44,520
Speaker 3: You have to also demonstrate a refusal by the individual

103
00:05:44,600 --> 00:05:47,640
Speaker 3: to return the documents once confronted about it by the

104
00:05:47,760 --> 00:05:51,559
Speaker 3: US government. That obstructive act is what got Donald Trump

105
00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:54,480
Speaker 3: in trouble. That he played games and tried to conceal things.

106
00:05:54,480 --> 00:05:57,640
Speaker 3: According to the indictment against him, that did not happen

107
00:05:57,680 --> 00:06:00,839
Speaker 3: with Joe Biden when he was confronted, they turned the

108
00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:04,279
Speaker 3: documents over like they're supposed to it. In those circumstances,

109
00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:07,560
Speaker 3: the government virtually never pursues criminal charges.

110
00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:12,080
Speaker 1: And in fact, this hasn't gotten as much media attention

111
00:06:12,760 --> 00:06:16,800
Speaker 1: as the characterization of Biden's memory. But the Special Council

112
00:06:16,880 --> 00:06:20,880
Speaker 1: sets out the difference between Biden's case and Trump's case.

113
00:06:21,560 --> 00:06:24,440
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that was the one I would say silver

114
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 3: lining to how the Special Council approach to the report

115
00:06:28,240 --> 00:06:32,239
Speaker 3: was to make clear and delineate those distinctions. But by

116
00:06:32,279 --> 00:06:37,359
Speaker 3: going into these other extraneous and irrelevant remarks about Biden's memory,

117
00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:41,000
Speaker 3: which would have no bearing at all on the government's

118
00:06:41,000 --> 00:06:44,799
Speaker 3: ability to prove their case, it inserted a political element

119
00:06:45,040 --> 00:06:48,599
Speaker 3: to this report that was completely improper and just raise

120
00:06:48,839 --> 00:06:52,320
Speaker 3: memories for so many of James Comy in July of

121
00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:57,200
Speaker 3: twenty sixteen, making his irrelevant and extringuous remarks about Hillary Clinton.

122
00:06:57,360 --> 00:06:59,800
Speaker 3: They couldn't bring charges, but they decided to launch a

123
00:06:59,800 --> 00:07:00,719
Speaker 3: political attack.

124
00:07:01,080 --> 00:07:03,760
Speaker 1: Yeah, he said. We have also considered that at trial,

125
00:07:04,160 --> 00:07:07,279
Speaker 1: mister Biden would likely present himself to a jury as

126
00:07:07,279 --> 00:07:10,400
Speaker 1: he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic,

127
00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:13,880
Speaker 1: well meaning elderly man with a poor memory. So, Brad,

128
00:07:13,920 --> 00:07:16,520
Speaker 1: how many times have you heard witnesses and deposition say

129
00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:19,400
Speaker 1: I don't recall, I don't remember, or words.

130
00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:21,600
Speaker 3: To that effect more times that I can count, And

131
00:07:21,640 --> 00:07:24,480
Speaker 3: I can remember Donald Trump doing it to mister Muller

132
00:07:24,600 --> 00:07:28,160
Speaker 3: in writing, because remember Trump never actually stacked for a deposition.

133
00:07:28,280 --> 00:07:31,560
Speaker 3: He admitted responses to written questions he had I do

134
00:07:31,640 --> 00:07:34,119
Speaker 3: not recall in there a bunch of times. Marjorie Taylor

135
00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:39,360
Speaker 3: Green on the stand in her disqualification trial, constantly said

136
00:07:39,360 --> 00:07:42,160
Speaker 3: I do not recall. It is a common thing. People

137
00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:45,440
Speaker 3: don't remember these kinds of details, especially years after the fact.

138
00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:48,960
Speaker 3: But what was important from a legal standpoint, and this

139
00:07:49,000 --> 00:07:51,880
Speaker 3: is again where the Special Council got it wrong, is

140
00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:54,320
Speaker 3: that whether or not Biden could prove he had a

141
00:07:54,360 --> 00:07:58,480
Speaker 3: poor memory would do nothing to save him as a

142
00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:01,520
Speaker 3: legal matter in terms of criminal culpability. Putting aside that

143
00:08:01,720 --> 00:08:04,400
Speaker 3: he would never testify, just as Donald Trump's not going

144
00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:08,200
Speaker 3: to testify in any of his trials, isn't entirely irrelevant

145
00:08:08,200 --> 00:08:11,480
Speaker 3: to the government's case and their ability to demonstrate criminal culpability.

146
00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:13,720
Speaker 3: The extent to which Joe Biden has a good memory

147
00:08:13,760 --> 00:08:15,040
Speaker 3: in this context.

148
00:08:15,120 --> 00:08:18,680
Speaker 1: And I mean the Justice Department rules and the intent

149
00:08:18,960 --> 00:08:22,800
Speaker 1: is that federal prosecutor should remain sensitive to the privacy

150
00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:25,520
Speaker 1: and reputation interests of uncharged parties.

151
00:08:25,840 --> 00:08:29,040
Speaker 3: But that's correct, that's not the wind here. Yeah, that's

152
00:08:29,040 --> 00:08:30,960
Speaker 3: out the window this point. And this is again when

153
00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:33,800
Speaker 3: I read this executive summary that at the beginning before

154
00:08:33,840 --> 00:08:35,640
Speaker 3: we got to the bigger report. But when I read

155
00:08:35,679 --> 00:08:39,160
Speaker 3: the executive's summary and reading these extraneous remarks, I gotta

156
00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:43,120
Speaker 3: say before it just brought back memories of July twenty sixteen,

157
00:08:43,400 --> 00:08:45,560
Speaker 3: because this is stuff that you were not supposed to

158
00:08:45,559 --> 00:08:48,520
Speaker 3: do at the Justice Department. You don't engage in these

159
00:08:48,559 --> 00:08:51,800
Speaker 3: extraneous political attacks on someone you've decided not to charge.

160
00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:55,319
Speaker 3: You know, Robert Muller's report, for all it's in depth,

161
00:08:55,400 --> 00:08:58,240
Speaker 3: you know details, didn't make those kind of political attacks

162
00:08:58,240 --> 00:09:01,000
Speaker 3: on Donald Trump. Never went to that part because he

163
00:09:01,040 --> 00:09:04,360
Speaker 3: wrote his in line with department procedures and policies. I

164
00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:07,880
Speaker 3: do not believe Special Counsel her adhere to those practices.

165
00:09:08,600 --> 00:09:11,760
Speaker 1: And what could Garland have done? I mean he could

166
00:09:11,760 --> 00:09:14,280
Speaker 1: he have released a summary like Bill Barr did with

167
00:09:14,360 --> 00:09:17,880
Speaker 1: the Muller report, or could he have requested that gratuitous

168
00:09:17,880 --> 00:09:20,120
Speaker 1: information about Biden be edited out.

169
00:09:20,800 --> 00:09:23,880
Speaker 3: Yes, he could have done all those things. He could

170
00:09:23,920 --> 00:09:26,520
Speaker 3: have done, you know, his own executive summary, just like

171
00:09:26,559 --> 00:09:28,880
Speaker 3: Bill Barr did. He would have had complete authority to

172
00:09:28,880 --> 00:09:30,120
Speaker 3: do it in discretion.

173
00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:30,800
Speaker 4: On the regulations.

174
00:09:30,920 --> 00:09:34,480
Speaker 3: Merrick Garland is far more of an institutionalist than Bill

175
00:09:34,520 --> 00:09:37,760
Speaker 3: Barr was, and certainly then Donald Trump was. And Marrick

176
00:09:37,800 --> 00:09:42,080
Speaker 3: Garland said transparency is the best avenue here. Just put

177
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:44,840
Speaker 3: it out. That was his choice. He's going to have

178
00:09:44,880 --> 00:09:47,880
Speaker 3: to live with that. In terms of the political rapification.

179
00:09:48,080 --> 00:09:51,320
Speaker 1: I mean, does this point to you know the problem

180
00:09:51,360 --> 00:09:54,320
Speaker 1: with special counsels? I mean here he conducted one hundred

181
00:09:54,360 --> 00:09:57,640
Speaker 1: and seventy three interviews, one hundred and forty seven witnesses,

182
00:09:58,200 --> 00:10:02,280
Speaker 1: including Biden, collected millions of documents to compile the report,

183
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:06,320
Speaker 1: and there is enormous pressure for these special council to

184
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:07,160
Speaker 1: bring charges.

185
00:10:07,960 --> 00:10:10,079
Speaker 3: Yeah, and this is where we've unfortunately gotten to the

186
00:10:10,120 --> 00:10:13,400
Speaker 3: point where the Special Council regulations have been corrupted the

187
00:10:13,400 --> 00:10:17,680
Speaker 3: way the original Independent Council statue passed by Congress got corrupted.

188
00:10:17,720 --> 00:10:20,760
Speaker 3: When you create the sort of you know, independent positions,

189
00:10:21,240 --> 00:10:24,040
Speaker 3: you give them these budgets and you give them what

190
00:10:24,120 --> 00:10:27,800
Speaker 3: is ultimately in all these cases a politically charged legal question.

191
00:10:28,200 --> 00:10:31,400
Speaker 3: They feel it necessary to justify their work. The only

192
00:10:31,480 --> 00:10:35,240
Speaker 3: person who got a very simple and sweet investigation was

193
00:10:35,280 --> 00:10:38,160
Speaker 3: Mike Penn and that's because there ultimately was no special counsel.

194
00:10:38,200 --> 00:10:40,720
Speaker 3: It was handled by a US Attorney's office. But for

195
00:10:41,000 --> 00:10:44,880
Speaker 3: Joe Biden, for Donald Trump, with Durham investigation as well,

196
00:10:44,920 --> 00:10:48,719
Speaker 3: in terms of Hillary Clinton and administration, it's always these

197
00:10:48,720 --> 00:10:53,080
Speaker 3: special councils. Now everything requires a special council, and inevitably

198
00:10:53,320 --> 00:10:56,880
Speaker 3: they seek to find a way to justify their expense,

199
00:10:57,120 --> 00:11:00,200
Speaker 3: and they ultimately, in some cases start bringing cases that

200
00:11:00,280 --> 00:11:03,600
Speaker 3: don't succeed, particularly a trial. We saw that with Durham probe,

201
00:11:03,720 --> 00:11:06,720
Speaker 3: two different not guilty verdicts a trial, they couldn't prove

202
00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:10,000
Speaker 3: their original premise. We saw that with Special Counsel Herd

203
00:11:10,080 --> 00:11:13,640
Speaker 3: does all this stuff, declines to bring charges appropriately in

204
00:11:13,640 --> 00:11:16,360
Speaker 3: my view, against Joe Biden, but then writes this, you know,

205
00:11:16,400 --> 00:11:20,280
Speaker 3: political charge summary. This is a problem we did not

206
00:11:20,400 --> 00:11:22,840
Speaker 3: anticipate with the special council regulation.

207
00:11:23,320 --> 00:11:26,360
Speaker 1: And now I suppose the next question is going to

208
00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:30,400
Speaker 1: be whether there will be a release of all or

209
00:11:30,559 --> 00:11:36,120
Speaker 1: part of the questioning of Joe Biden. By the special counsel.

210
00:11:36,840 --> 00:11:40,160
Speaker 1: More to come. Thanks so much, brad. That's Bradley Moss

211
00:11:40,200 --> 00:11:44,240
Speaker 1: of Mark Zaid. In other legal news today, as expected,

212
00:11:44,440 --> 00:11:47,760
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to keep his

213
00:11:47,840 --> 00:11:51,280
Speaker 1: criminal trial for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election

214
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:54,719
Speaker 1: on hold while he appeals a ruling from the d

215
00:11:54,920 --> 00:11:59,040
Speaker 1: C Circuit Court that rejected his bid for immunity from prosecution.

216
00:11:59,440 --> 00:12:02,040
Speaker 1: Trump is ask the Justices to give him the option

217
00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:05,000
Speaker 1: of seeking review from an on bank panel of the

218
00:12:05,080 --> 00:12:09,000
Speaker 1: DC Circuit rather than appealing directly to the Supreme Court.

219
00:12:09,320 --> 00:12:12,680
Speaker 1: Coming up next, in a defeat for Ubs, the Supreme

220
00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:17,960
Speaker 1: Court makes it easier for whistleblowers. This is bloomberg in

221
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:21,400
Speaker 1: a win for whistleblowers and a loss for Ubs. The

222
00:12:21,440 --> 00:12:24,520
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has made it easier for whistleblowers to win

223
00:12:24,679 --> 00:12:29,480
Speaker 1: suits claiming retaliation under a federal investor protection law. The

224
00:12:29,760 --> 00:12:33,720
Speaker 1: Justices reinstated a nine hundred thousand dollars jury verdict won

225
00:12:33,800 --> 00:12:38,720
Speaker 1: by a fired Ubs Group research strategist. In a unanimous decision.

226
00:12:39,040 --> 00:12:42,600
Speaker 1: The Justice is found that a whistleblower is not required

227
00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:46,640
Speaker 1: to make a showing that the employer acted with retaliatory intent.

228
00:12:47,400 --> 00:12:51,640
Speaker 1: Why well, simply that requirement doesn't square with the language

229
00:12:51,679 --> 00:12:54,960
Speaker 1: of the two thousand and two Sarbanes Oxley Act. As

230
00:12:55,080 --> 00:12:59,160
Speaker 1: Justice Neil Gore such emphasized during oral arguments as he

231
00:12:59,280 --> 00:13:03,440
Speaker 1: questioned ubbs's attorney, Eugene Scalia, the son of the late

232
00:13:03,679 --> 00:13:05,520
Speaker 1: Justice Antonin Scalia.

233
00:13:05,280 --> 00:13:06,320
Speaker 4: Whistle or retaliation.

234
00:13:06,360 --> 00:13:08,640
Speaker 2: I just don't see those words in this statute.

235
00:13:08,880 --> 00:13:12,680
Speaker 4: I see discrimination in the statute, and I see whistle

236
00:13:12,679 --> 00:13:15,439
Speaker 4: blowing activity, and I know there's a causation requirement, but

237
00:13:15,480 --> 00:13:18,840
Speaker 4: I don't see the retaliation in the statute yet. So

238
00:13:18,960 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 4: help me, help. You're asking me to read things into

239
00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:23,160
Speaker 4: statues that aren't there. Aren't you.

240
00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:26,720
Speaker 1: Counsel joining me is John George Arris, a partner at

241
00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:29,800
Speaker 1: Scarincy Holland Beck. First tell us about the facts of

242
00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:30,880
Speaker 1: the case itself.

243
00:13:31,679 --> 00:13:35,840
Speaker 5: So, we have an employee of UBS that was fired

244
00:13:36,240 --> 00:13:40,600
Speaker 5: in connection with a complaint that he had made to

245
00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:47,040
Speaker 5: HR regarding two UBS trading desk employees who were essentially

246
00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:52,440
Speaker 5: pressuring him to put a flint on his reporting. This individual,

247
00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:57,480
Speaker 5: the person that was terminated from UBS, was producing research

248
00:13:57,559 --> 00:14:00,719
Speaker 5: reports and it was a requirement under the Securities and

249
00:14:00,800 --> 00:14:06,520
Speaker 5: Exchange Commissions Framework that these reports be independent. So the

250
00:14:06,559 --> 00:14:10,559
Speaker 5: individual here thought he was under pressure, made a complaint

251
00:14:10,920 --> 00:14:16,960
Speaker 5: within UBS internally, and then shortly thereafter was terminated, which

252
00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:22,800
Speaker 5: then led to the lawsuit under Starbaine's Oxley for a

253
00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:28,280
Speaker 5: claim that this was a retaliatory adverse employment action, which

254
00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:30,240
Speaker 5: led us eventually to the Supreme Court.

255
00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:33,480
Speaker 1: So the jury rule for him, but then the second

256
00:14:33,560 --> 00:14:36,280
Speaker 1: Circuit reversed. Explain why the second Circuit reversed.

257
00:14:37,080 --> 00:14:41,680
Speaker 5: So the essential issue in this case is what a

258
00:14:41,760 --> 00:14:47,840
Speaker 5: plaintiff has to prove verse what the defendant UBS would

259
00:14:47,920 --> 00:14:52,200
Speaker 5: have to counter with. The reason the second Circuit reversed

260
00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:56,480
Speaker 5: the case is because at the district court level, the

261
00:14:56,920 --> 00:15:01,680
Speaker 5: court did not instruct the jury that plaintiffs, the employee

262
00:15:01,720 --> 00:15:07,000
Speaker 5: that was fired, was required to show that his employer

263
00:15:07,160 --> 00:15:12,640
Speaker 5: acted with retaliatory intent. This was an element that the

264
00:15:12,680 --> 00:15:17,000
Speaker 5: Second Circuit felt Congress had put into the law and

265
00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:19,920
Speaker 5: that he was required as a plaintiff to prove that.

266
00:15:20,560 --> 00:15:24,200
Speaker 5: By not giving the jury that instruction, the Second Circuit

267
00:15:24,280 --> 00:15:28,160
Speaker 5: said that the district court had aired and then reversed

268
00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:32,600
Speaker 5: the case on this basis of retaliatory intent being a

269
00:15:32,720 --> 00:15:35,800
Speaker 5: key element of the claim, which then later brings us

270
00:15:35,840 --> 00:15:38,600
Speaker 5: to the Supreme Court. Where that issue was then litigated.

271
00:15:39,040 --> 00:15:41,520
Speaker 1: So was there a split in the circuits about whether

272
00:15:41,560 --> 00:15:44,640
Speaker 1: you need retaliatory intent or not exactly?

273
00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:47,840
Speaker 5: And that's what led to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

274
00:15:47,960 --> 00:15:51,760
Speaker 5: That decision created a split, and therefore we needed clarity

275
00:15:51,760 --> 00:15:54,000
Speaker 5: on the wall for what a plaintiff was required to

276
00:15:54,040 --> 00:15:58,280
Speaker 5: show in order to make this claim a retaliatory employment claim.

277
00:15:58,520 --> 00:16:01,520
Speaker 1: All right, So what did this Supreme Court say?

278
00:16:02,480 --> 00:16:06,800
Speaker 5: The Supreme Court came down in a nine to zero

279
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:13,800
Speaker 5: unanimous decision ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, and essentially

280
00:16:13,800 --> 00:16:16,960
Speaker 5: the whole thing. It's very simple. The court held that

281
00:16:17,040 --> 00:16:21,640
Speaker 5: this whistle blower the employee, must prove that their activity

282
00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:27,400
Speaker 5: was a contributing factor in the employee's unfavorable personnel action,

283
00:16:27,560 --> 00:16:33,080
Speaker 5: but need not prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent.

284
00:16:33,680 --> 00:16:36,800
Speaker 5: So that's the key. The Supreme Court came back and said,

285
00:16:37,240 --> 00:16:40,760
Speaker 5: retaliatory intent is not part of this. All you have

286
00:16:40,840 --> 00:16:45,520
Speaker 5: to do is show as a plaintiff that the retaliatory

287
00:16:45,960 --> 00:16:51,720
Speaker 5: action was in connection with the protected whistleblower activity. Here

288
00:16:51,880 --> 00:16:54,360
Speaker 5: it was raising the fact that he was put under

289
00:16:54,400 --> 00:16:59,360
Speaker 5: pressure to produce reports that weren't independent. If the planeff

290
00:16:59,440 --> 00:17:03,320
Speaker 5: is able to prove that retaliation at least was a

291
00:17:03,400 --> 00:17:08,920
Speaker 5: part of the termination, then the burden shifts to the employer.

292
00:17:09,240 --> 00:17:12,280
Speaker 5: In this regard to Ubs, we then has to demonstrate

293
00:17:12,320 --> 00:17:16,720
Speaker 5: by clear and convincing evidence that know, the report to

294
00:17:16,960 --> 00:17:21,040
Speaker 5: HR the whistle Blowing Act had nothing to do with

295
00:17:21,160 --> 00:17:26,159
Speaker 5: the retaliation. And specifically here you'd be a stated the

296
00:17:26,200 --> 00:17:29,280
Speaker 5: business had lost millions of dollars and that this employee

297
00:17:29,480 --> 00:17:33,240
Speaker 5: was dispensable because the work that he was producing these

298
00:17:33,240 --> 00:17:38,720
Speaker 5: research reports weren't necessary to UBS's business. That was their

299
00:17:39,080 --> 00:17:42,160
Speaker 5: attempt to try to say it wasn't retaliatory. But that's

300
00:17:42,200 --> 00:17:45,560
Speaker 5: the burden shifting mechanism. And the way the court came

301
00:17:45,640 --> 00:17:48,840
Speaker 5: down at the end of the day is they eliminated

302
00:17:49,280 --> 00:17:53,720
Speaker 5: this retaliatory intent portion of it, saying that it wasn't

303
00:17:53,760 --> 00:17:57,560
Speaker 5: really part of Congress's intent and it would undermine the

304
00:17:57,560 --> 00:18:01,720
Speaker 5: burden shifting framework of bringing a and then attempting to rebut.

305
00:18:01,560 --> 00:18:07,040
Speaker 1: It it seems like this really lowers the burden for

306
00:18:07,359 --> 00:18:10,320
Speaker 1: plaintiffs in these kinds of cases. I mean, will it

307
00:18:10,359 --> 00:18:12,720
Speaker 1: make it much easier for them to prove their case.

308
00:18:13,400 --> 00:18:18,240
Speaker 5: I believe that this would motivate individuals that were terminated

309
00:18:18,320 --> 00:18:24,520
Speaker 5: after a whistleblower complaint to bring more claims, because this

310
00:18:24,680 --> 00:18:28,879
Speaker 5: retaliatory intent in and of itself as an element is

311
00:18:28,920 --> 00:18:31,840
Speaker 5: hard to get to because you're going to someone's mindset

312
00:18:32,160 --> 00:18:35,639
Speaker 5: and that may be very difficult to break down. So yes,

313
00:18:35,760 --> 00:18:39,400
Speaker 5: I do think that ultimately the Supreme Court has opened

314
00:18:39,400 --> 00:18:42,120
Speaker 5: the door to more of these cases. And there's still

315
00:18:42,119 --> 00:18:44,639
Speaker 5: a burden. You still have to prove, at least by

316
00:18:44,640 --> 00:18:47,840
Speaker 5: a preponderance of the evidence that you were terminated, at

317
00:18:47,920 --> 00:18:51,000
Speaker 5: least in part as a result of your protected activity

318
00:18:51,080 --> 00:18:54,640
Speaker 5: making a claim to HR whistle blowing in some way,

319
00:18:54,640 --> 00:18:57,159
Speaker 5: shape or form. So it's still there, it's just not

320
00:18:57,320 --> 00:19:01,560
Speaker 5: that extra step of retaliatory in So I would imagine

321
00:19:01,600 --> 00:19:04,440
Speaker 5: that we will see an uptick in these types of cases.

322
00:19:04,560 --> 00:19:07,960
Speaker 1: And several business groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce,

323
00:19:07,960 --> 00:19:11,960
Speaker 1: had asked the Supreme Court to side with UBS, and

324
00:19:12,000 --> 00:19:16,760
Speaker 1: this is a Supreme Court that is very much business oriented.

325
00:19:16,840 --> 00:19:18,920
Speaker 1: So was this a surprising decision.

326
00:19:19,760 --> 00:19:22,720
Speaker 5: It was somewhat of a surprising decision, especially that it

327
00:19:22,800 --> 00:19:25,600
Speaker 5: came down nine to zero and it was drafted by

328
00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:29,679
Speaker 5: Justice Sotomayor. The opinion. It is somewhat surprising that this

329
00:19:29,840 --> 00:19:32,399
Speaker 5: is where they landed. But I think this Supreme Court

330
00:19:32,400 --> 00:19:39,280
Speaker 5: has also stuck very closely to a textual interpretation of

331
00:19:39,320 --> 00:19:42,879
Speaker 5: the statutes that they're analyzing, and here in the decision,

332
00:19:43,480 --> 00:19:46,520
Speaker 5: the justices seem to all fall on the same side

333
00:19:46,520 --> 00:19:52,720
Speaker 5: of essentially saying this law the way it's written Sarbanzoxley,

334
00:19:52,800 --> 00:19:55,959
Speaker 5: the way that it's written. There's no reading into this

335
00:19:56,240 --> 00:20:02,480
Speaker 5: of retaliatory intent being a clear element. Rather, the burden

336
00:20:02,520 --> 00:20:06,560
Speaker 5: shifting framework that they have for bringing a claim, proving

337
00:20:06,600 --> 00:20:09,520
Speaker 5: that retaliation was a part of it, and then giving

338
00:20:09,560 --> 00:20:12,720
Speaker 5: the defendant an opportunity to show that there were many

339
00:20:12,760 --> 00:20:17,080
Speaker 5: other reasons why that individual was terminated is the proper

340
00:20:17,480 --> 00:20:22,120
Speaker 5: sort of textual interpretation of this law, and that's where

341
00:20:22,119 --> 00:20:25,720
Speaker 5: they ultimately came down. So yes, I think it's somewhat

342
00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:29,399
Speaker 5: surprising that they're so business oriented, But I think this

343
00:20:29,480 --> 00:20:32,080
Speaker 5: Court has also shown that they will take a look

344
00:20:32,119 --> 00:20:36,119
Speaker 5: at a statute and not read anything else into it

345
00:20:36,200 --> 00:20:39,359
Speaker 5: that wasn't explicitly outlined by Congress.

346
00:20:39,640 --> 00:20:43,000
Speaker 1: The Second Circuit, which is the circuit that handles so

347
00:20:43,080 --> 00:20:47,800
Speaker 1: many securities cases and cases involving business Wall Street, where

348
00:20:47,800 --> 00:20:50,680
Speaker 1: did it come up with that standard? If it's nowhere

349
00:20:50,720 --> 00:20:52,000
Speaker 1: in the statute.

350
00:20:52,400 --> 00:20:57,040
Speaker 5: I think that it was a matter of time and litigation. Obviously,

351
00:20:57,080 --> 00:21:02,640
Speaker 5: the jurisprudence was lending itself in that and to act itself.

352
00:21:02,680 --> 00:21:08,120
Speaker 5: You could read into it that the retaliatory intent and

353
00:21:08,160 --> 00:21:12,600
Speaker 5: the retaliatory Act is a pretty close to nexus between

354
00:21:13,200 --> 00:21:18,119
Speaker 5: the two that blended itself into jury instructions that you

355
00:21:18,240 --> 00:21:22,359
Speaker 5: have to show they had this type of intent, retaliatory

356
00:21:22,400 --> 00:21:26,719
Speaker 5: intent in order to have an adverse finding against them. Well,

357
00:21:26,760 --> 00:21:28,600
Speaker 5: the court is saying here is just a little bit

358
00:21:29,880 --> 00:21:33,560
Speaker 5: more nuanced, is saying, the plaintiff has to show that

359
00:21:33,640 --> 00:21:37,480
Speaker 5: retaliation at least in part led to the decision to

360
00:21:37,520 --> 00:21:42,840
Speaker 5: the employer terminating them. The retaliatory intent, I think just

361
00:21:42,880 --> 00:21:47,600
Speaker 5: became part of a jury instruction to sort of make

362
00:21:47,640 --> 00:21:51,399
Speaker 5: that concept more clear. The Supreme Court felt, Okay, this

363
00:21:51,520 --> 00:21:53,800
Speaker 5: was a step too far. This is an intent that

364
00:21:54,000 --> 00:21:54,920
Speaker 5: wasn't a part of the law.

365
00:21:55,560 --> 00:21:59,080
Speaker 1: So now employers will have to come up with proof

366
00:21:59,200 --> 00:22:01,359
Speaker 1: that it wasn't retaliation.

367
00:22:01,640 --> 00:22:05,040
Speaker 5: Absolutely, and they will have to closely document it, Especially

368
00:22:05,119 --> 00:22:08,159
Speaker 5: in cases where there's a whistleblower, they will have to

369
00:22:08,560 --> 00:22:12,160
Speaker 5: very closely document what occurred. And the key in these

370
00:22:12,240 --> 00:22:17,600
Speaker 5: cases are the time period between when the whistleblower takes

371
00:22:17,600 --> 00:22:20,760
Speaker 5: the action right to report that there was something until

372
00:22:20,760 --> 00:22:23,480
Speaker 5: we're going on, or that there were some issues happening

373
00:22:23,520 --> 00:22:27,399
Speaker 5: at the company and the time when they get terminated.

374
00:22:27,840 --> 00:22:31,439
Speaker 5: The shorter that time period is typically the harder it

375
00:22:31,520 --> 00:22:35,680
Speaker 5: will be to prove as an employer that this action

376
00:22:35,920 --> 00:22:40,560
Speaker 5: was taken independent of what the whistleblower's conduct was. The

377
00:22:40,640 --> 00:22:44,159
Speaker 5: longer that time period, the more chance you have to

378
00:22:44,200 --> 00:22:48,000
Speaker 5: build a record and closely document. But I'm sure that

379
00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:51,480
Speaker 5: across Wall Street all the major banks are now anice.

380
00:22:51,600 --> 00:22:54,520
Speaker 5: That someone makes a whistleblower complaint and they end up

381
00:22:54,640 --> 00:22:59,760
Speaker 5: you're considering letting them go, you better very closely document

382
00:23:00,280 --> 00:23:02,960
Speaker 5: the reasons why, because, as you stated earlier, this was

383
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:06,760
Speaker 5: a fairly sizable verdict and award, and what's the blower

384
00:23:06,880 --> 00:23:11,199
Speaker 5: action happened quite often. The SEC has a robust whistle

385
00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:15,199
Speaker 5: blowers program, and internally all the banks are required to

386
00:23:15,200 --> 00:23:18,679
Speaker 5: have some level of compliance and HR to allow people

387
00:23:18,760 --> 00:23:22,199
Speaker 5: to have that outlet to sort of police themselves. So

388
00:23:22,320 --> 00:23:26,200
Speaker 5: I imagine now in later this decision, the General Counsel

389
00:23:26,240 --> 00:23:28,639
Speaker 5: of banks are getting together and putting a framework in

390
00:23:28,720 --> 00:23:33,399
Speaker 5: place for how they're going to now document even further

391
00:23:33,440 --> 00:23:37,359
Speaker 5: than they've done before. Employees that blow the whistle, they

392
00:23:37,400 --> 00:23:40,040
Speaker 5: are going to be terminated. There has to be a

393
00:23:40,119 --> 00:23:43,760
Speaker 5: process in place for what's going to happen, because they'll

394
00:23:44,080 --> 00:23:45,840
Speaker 5: need to mitigate a lot of risk here, a lot

395
00:23:45,840 --> 00:23:46,640
Speaker 5: of potential risk.

396
00:23:47,040 --> 00:23:49,480
Speaker 1: And do you think it might lead to more settlements

397
00:23:49,600 --> 00:23:50,800
Speaker 1: as well?

398
00:23:50,840 --> 00:23:55,280
Speaker 5: Get a lot of inbound inquiries from individuals that were

399
00:23:55,640 --> 00:23:59,639
Speaker 5: fired from brokerage firms right fired from banks and it

400
00:24:00,160 --> 00:24:04,119
Speaker 5: follows the same story. They reported something to HR and

401
00:24:04,160 --> 00:24:08,040
Speaker 5: then they're terminated not that long after. This case opens

402
00:24:08,119 --> 00:24:10,879
Speaker 5: up the gates through me in a lot of ways.

403
00:24:10,920 --> 00:24:13,479
Speaker 5: I mean, I'll be setting to this case in every

404
00:24:13,960 --> 00:24:17,600
Speaker 5: demand letter I write to these big One of the

405
00:24:17,640 --> 00:24:19,520
Speaker 5: first things that I say say, hey, if you want

406
00:24:19,520 --> 00:24:21,879
Speaker 5: to litigate this, just so you're aware, you know, my

407
00:24:22,000 --> 00:24:24,320
Speaker 5: burden just got a lot lower, and here burden's got

408
00:24:24,320 --> 00:24:26,639
Speaker 5: a lot higher. So why don't we have a conversation

409
00:24:26,720 --> 00:24:27,920
Speaker 5: before we get to that point.

410
00:24:28,080 --> 00:24:30,560
Speaker 1: It's interesting to hear the real world effect of these

411
00:24:30,600 --> 00:24:35,800
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions. Thanks so much, John George. That's John George. Aarris,

412
00:24:35,920 --> 00:24:39,680
Speaker 1: Obscurency Holland Beck coming up next on The Bloomberg Lawn Show.

413
00:24:39,880 --> 00:24:42,840
Speaker 1: We're going to talk to the principal architect of the

414
00:24:42,920 --> 00:24:46,800
Speaker 1: SEC's whistleblower program. Remember, you can always get the latest

415
00:24:46,840 --> 00:24:50,119
Speaker 1: legal news by listening to our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You

416
00:24:50,119 --> 00:24:52,960
Speaker 1: can find them wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I'm

417
00:24:53,000 --> 00:24:59,719
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg

418
00:24:59,800 --> 00:25:04,960
Speaker 1: Law with June Russo from Bloombird Radio. The Supreme Court

419
00:25:05,000 --> 00:25:09,200
Speaker 1: has made it easier for whistleblowers to win suits claiming retaliation.

420
00:25:09,600 --> 00:25:13,000
Speaker 1: In a loss for UBS reinstating a nine hundred thousand

421
00:25:13,000 --> 00:25:17,840
Speaker 1: dollars jury verdict won by a fired research strategist, the justices,

422
00:25:17,920 --> 00:25:22,479
Speaker 1: voting unanimously against UBS, said the Sarbanes Oxley Act doesn't

423
00:25:22,520 --> 00:25:26,840
Speaker 1: require whistleblowers to prove they were the victims of intentional retaliation.

424
00:25:27,400 --> 00:25:30,119
Speaker 1: Joining me now is Sean mckessey. He was the first

425
00:25:30,200 --> 00:25:34,000
Speaker 1: chief of the SEC Whistleblower Office and the principal architect

426
00:25:34,119 --> 00:25:37,320
Speaker 1: of the whistleblower program. He's now a partner at Phillips

427
00:25:37,320 --> 00:25:42,280
Speaker 1: and Cohen. Were you surprised that this business friendly Supreme

428
00:25:42,440 --> 00:25:45,080
Speaker 1: Court came down with this unanimous decision?

429
00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:48,280
Speaker 4: Yes, I was surprised. You know, it's interesting I was

430
00:25:48,320 --> 00:25:52,480
Speaker 4: thinking about this. We have now two whistleblower related cases,

431
00:25:52,720 --> 00:25:56,639
Speaker 4: both of which were deciding unanimously. So it appears that

432
00:25:57,000 --> 00:25:59,879
Speaker 4: somehow the Supreme Court able find common grounds when it

433
00:26:00,040 --> 00:26:03,600
Speaker 4: comes to whistleblower related cases. So if you may remember,

434
00:26:03,600 --> 00:26:06,720
Speaker 4: in Digital Realty, the court ruled nine to zero that

435
00:26:07,160 --> 00:26:09,840
Speaker 4: a person needs to report to the SEC to be

436
00:26:09,840 --> 00:26:13,160
Speaker 4: protected under the anti retaliation provisions of dot Frank. And

437
00:26:13,680 --> 00:26:15,920
Speaker 4: you know, those of us on the whistleblowers side, I

438
00:26:15,960 --> 00:26:18,480
Speaker 4: think were hopeful that they would be more fertile ground

439
00:26:18,520 --> 00:26:21,919
Speaker 4: for understanding that whistleblowers should be protected when the report

440
00:26:22,359 --> 00:26:25,320
Speaker 4: quote unquote only to their employers and not to the SEC.

441
00:26:26,000 --> 00:26:29,560
Speaker 4: And most employers said they would prefer reporting internally and

442
00:26:29,600 --> 00:26:32,119
Speaker 4: not you know, quote unquote running to the SEC. And

443
00:26:32,440 --> 00:26:35,119
Speaker 4: that's basically where that court came down. And now fast

444
00:26:35,119 --> 00:26:38,359
Speaker 4: forward a case under a starvaysox Lee, which preceded DoD Frank.

445
00:26:38,600 --> 00:26:43,640
Speaker 4: Interestingly enough, retaliation is on the table again, and here unanimously,

446
00:26:44,080 --> 00:26:47,920
Speaker 4: the decision is made to favor whistle blowers in striking

447
00:26:47,960 --> 00:26:51,000
Speaker 4: down a ruling that you need to prove that an

448
00:26:51,040 --> 00:26:56,119
Speaker 4: employer intended to retaliate in order to succeed under a

449
00:26:56,119 --> 00:27:00,200
Speaker 4: Starvaysoxley retaliation claims. You've got two retaliation cases, one going

450
00:27:00,280 --> 00:27:03,240
Speaker 4: for the corporate side, one going for the whistleblower side,

451
00:27:03,240 --> 00:27:07,280
Speaker 4: both unanimous, and it is of interest in that, at

452
00:27:07,359 --> 00:27:11,159
Speaker 4: least stereotypically, you think there's a certain factor of the

453
00:27:11,240 --> 00:27:14,840
Speaker 4: court that is quote unquote more business friendly and might

454
00:27:14,880 --> 00:27:19,520
Speaker 4: therefore be more antagonistic potentially to whistleblowers, and another faction

455
00:27:19,560 --> 00:27:22,560
Speaker 4: that would be more favorable. And in two cases they

456
00:27:22,600 --> 00:27:27,119
Speaker 4: came down unanimously and interestingly, one was very pro whistle

457
00:27:27,160 --> 00:27:29,919
Speaker 4: blower and one, in my view, was anti whistle blower.

458
00:27:30,160 --> 00:27:32,080
Speaker 4: But I think if you look at a strict reading

459
00:27:32,080 --> 00:27:35,320
Speaker 4: of the of the statute, both of them in some

460
00:27:35,400 --> 00:27:38,000
Speaker 4: ways almost had to be unanimous, because you either read

461
00:27:38,000 --> 00:27:39,760
Speaker 4: their statute one way or you read it the other.

462
00:27:40,280 --> 00:27:43,080
Speaker 4: In both instances they agreed on how to read in

463
00:27:43,119 --> 00:27:46,520
Speaker 4: this particular instance Starving vastly, and in the Digital Realty

464
00:27:47,000 --> 00:27:49,760
Speaker 4: case it was the dog Frank statue. But you know,

465
00:27:49,920 --> 00:27:52,800
Speaker 4: ultimately a favorable development for those of us who who

466
00:27:52,800 --> 00:27:54,080
Speaker 4: represent whistle blowers.

467
00:27:54,800 --> 00:27:59,440
Speaker 1: How difficult is it for an employee to prove that

468
00:27:59,520 --> 00:28:02,960
Speaker 1: an employ eloyer acted with retaliatory intent.

469
00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:08,040
Speaker 4: Retaliation cases, by their nature are circumstantial. Very rarely do

470
00:28:08,040 --> 00:28:10,919
Speaker 4: you have a smoking gun where somebody goes to an

471
00:28:10,920 --> 00:28:13,760
Speaker 4: employee and says, we're firing you because you reported this wrongdoing,

472
00:28:13,840 --> 00:28:17,240
Speaker 4: either internally or to the SEC. That is very very rare.

473
00:28:17,320 --> 00:28:20,199
Speaker 4: I say, I've never seen it, And so you have

474
00:28:20,280 --> 00:28:23,480
Speaker 4: to put together a case that shows chronology is usually

475
00:28:23,800 --> 00:28:27,320
Speaker 4: the best way to put it. This employee had great reviews,

476
00:28:27,359 --> 00:28:31,119
Speaker 4: great reviews, great reviews. Company finds out wrongdoings reported. All

477
00:28:31,160 --> 00:28:34,480
Speaker 4: of a sudden, the employee's reviews go down the tank,

478
00:28:34,960 --> 00:28:40,280
Speaker 4: and conveniently, either the whistleblow or is fired or marginalized

479
00:28:40,400 --> 00:28:43,400
Speaker 4: or moved off of his or her primary responsibility. That

480
00:28:43,480 --> 00:28:46,320
Speaker 4: and of itself is a difficult case to put together. Imagine,

481
00:28:46,320 --> 00:28:49,560
Speaker 4: on top of that, you have to prove that the

482
00:28:49,640 --> 00:28:54,320
Speaker 4: employer had a mental state of intentionality in order to

483
00:28:54,440 --> 00:28:57,000
Speaker 4: succeed on retaliation. And you know, I don't know about you,

484
00:28:57,080 --> 00:28:59,640
Speaker 4: but I think it's really hard to read anybody's intentions,

485
00:29:00,080 --> 00:29:02,160
Speaker 4: prove anybody's intention You know, I was thinking you just

486
00:29:02,240 --> 00:29:04,760
Speaker 4: called me, and I would say you intentionally called me.

487
00:29:04,800 --> 00:29:06,440
Speaker 4: And the evidence I have is that you picked up

488
00:29:06,480 --> 00:29:08,120
Speaker 4: the phone and you called me but if you came

489
00:29:08,160 --> 00:29:09,440
Speaker 4: back to me and said, I'm sorry that was a

490
00:29:09,480 --> 00:29:11,920
Speaker 4: butt dial, I can't prove that you didn't intend to

491
00:29:11,960 --> 00:29:14,920
Speaker 4: call me, because all I know is that you picked

492
00:29:14,960 --> 00:29:16,959
Speaker 4: up the phone and now I'm talking to you. And

493
00:29:17,200 --> 00:29:19,600
Speaker 4: you know it's a loose analogy, but imagine if you're

494
00:29:20,000 --> 00:29:22,920
Speaker 4: an employee who has been fired and you have all

495
00:29:22,920 --> 00:29:28,400
Speaker 4: the circumstance great review, great review, great review, wrongdoing reported fired, Okay,

496
00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:30,240
Speaker 4: that's great, But can you prove that they intended to

497
00:29:30,280 --> 00:29:32,520
Speaker 4: fire you for the reporting as opposed to something else?

498
00:29:32,720 --> 00:29:35,560
Speaker 4: And there's always something else, right, Employers always come up with,

499
00:29:35,800 --> 00:29:38,160
Speaker 4: you know, you're late with your time sheets, you pudge

500
00:29:38,200 --> 00:29:40,920
Speaker 4: an expense account, Well it's a riff. You know, we're

501
00:29:40,960 --> 00:29:43,760
Speaker 4: cutting down costs, and you're just one of four or

502
00:29:43,760 --> 00:29:46,240
Speaker 4: five people getting fired. So there's always something else that

503
00:29:46,280 --> 00:29:48,760
Speaker 4: an employer can either turn to or send in a

504
00:29:48,840 --> 00:29:51,240
Speaker 4: fabricate And I don't say that lightly, but it has

505
00:29:51,280 --> 00:29:54,560
Speaker 4: happened that employers have come up with excuses for firing

506
00:29:54,600 --> 00:29:58,240
Speaker 4: after the fact to fit the story. So a very

507
00:29:58,240 --> 00:30:01,320
Speaker 4: favorable outcome in the UBS case, and interesting that all

508
00:30:01,440 --> 00:30:05,239
Speaker 4: nine justices came down, you know, in a way that

509
00:30:05,840 --> 00:30:09,080
Speaker 4: tips the scales in favor of whistleblowers under Starbank's Oxley,

510
00:30:09,520 --> 00:30:11,320
Speaker 4: when under Dodd Frank they tipped the scales in the

511
00:30:11,360 --> 00:30:12,080
Speaker 4: opposite direction.

512
00:30:12,320 --> 00:30:16,600
Speaker 1: Even during the oral arguments, Justice Corset said, I don't

513
00:30:16,600 --> 00:30:20,840
Speaker 1: see retaliation in the statute. So is the difference that

514
00:30:21,480 --> 00:30:26,320
Speaker 1: Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank have different language.

515
00:30:26,760 --> 00:30:29,280
Speaker 4: Yes, And the interesting thing for those of us on

516
00:30:29,360 --> 00:30:32,800
Speaker 4: the side of whistleblowers is in Dodd Frank, everybody knows.

517
00:30:32,800 --> 00:30:34,440
Speaker 4: And this was the argument that was made that the

518
00:30:34,440 --> 00:30:37,600
Speaker 4: Court unanimously rejected because the language in the statute is

519
00:30:37,680 --> 00:30:40,560
Speaker 4: very specific and defied a whistleblower as someone who reports

520
00:30:40,600 --> 00:30:44,760
Speaker 4: wrongdoing to the Commission. And later in the statute it

521
00:30:44,760 --> 00:30:48,120
Speaker 4: talks about all these enhanced protections for whistleblowers. And the

522
00:30:48,160 --> 00:30:53,120
Speaker 4: Whistleblower Bar's view is that clearly Congress intended to enhance

523
00:30:53,320 --> 00:30:56,920
Speaker 4: retaliation protections from Starbanks, Oxley Dodd Frank. And one of

524
00:30:56,920 --> 00:30:58,840
Speaker 4: the ways they did that was to have all these

525
00:30:59,400 --> 00:31:04,320
Speaker 4: enhanced measures. You know, they increase the penalties from one

526
00:31:04,360 --> 00:31:06,000
Speaker 4: time back pay to two and a half back pay,

527
00:31:06,040 --> 00:31:09,680
Speaker 4: they increase the factual limitations in god Frank. Ultimately all

528
00:31:09,680 --> 00:31:12,440
Speaker 4: of that got stripped away because in the definition section

529
00:31:12,480 --> 00:31:15,360
Speaker 4: it said a person retaliates only if they report wrongdoing

530
00:31:15,440 --> 00:31:17,960
Speaker 4: to the Commission, and by a nine to zero vote,

531
00:31:18,080 --> 00:31:21,520
Speaker 4: the Commissioner said that language and of itself drives the decision,

532
00:31:21,880 --> 00:31:25,240
Speaker 4: starving thos leave a little bit less direct in terms

533
00:31:25,280 --> 00:31:29,200
Speaker 4: of how it defines retaliation and how do you perfect

534
00:31:29,280 --> 00:31:34,280
Speaker 4: your status, And it doesn't have specific language about needing

535
00:31:34,320 --> 00:31:38,320
Speaker 4: to report something to a specific entity to be entitled

536
00:31:38,400 --> 00:31:43,600
Speaker 4: to these protections. It's more a directive to employers as

537
00:31:43,600 --> 00:31:46,640
Speaker 4: opposed to a definition of employees. And it says in

538
00:31:46,680 --> 00:31:50,520
Speaker 4: starbeign Exocy, no person shall take any action to discriminate

539
00:31:50,600 --> 00:31:53,160
Speaker 4: against someone who reports wrongdoing. So in that ways it's

540
00:31:53,200 --> 00:31:56,360
Speaker 4: prescriptive in some ways, whereas in god Frank it was

541
00:31:56,440 --> 00:31:57,960
Speaker 4: pointed to the whistleblower and says, if you want to

542
00:31:58,000 --> 00:32:00,360
Speaker 4: be whistlebler, you have to do the following things, one

543
00:32:00,360 --> 00:32:03,840
Speaker 4: of which is reports to the SEC. And so that

544
00:32:03,920 --> 00:32:06,960
Speaker 4: distinction allows starvayk Doxy to be a little bit more

545
00:32:07,000 --> 00:32:10,280
Speaker 4: fluid and how it determines the pool of people who

546
00:32:10,360 --> 00:32:14,520
Speaker 4: are entitled to retaliation protection. And you know, in the

547
00:32:14,560 --> 00:32:18,080
Speaker 4: particular case that the circuit courts found you may have

548
00:32:18,360 --> 00:32:21,560
Speaker 4: provided evidence that you will retaliate against, but you fall

549
00:32:21,600 --> 00:32:24,880
Speaker 4: short and that you cannot prove that there was intentionality

550
00:32:24,920 --> 00:32:29,120
Speaker 4: behind the conduct, that they intentionally wanted to retaliate against you,

551
00:32:29,720 --> 00:32:32,640
Speaker 4: as opposed to a more easy standard to meet, which

552
00:32:32,680 --> 00:32:34,960
Speaker 4: is it was one of the contributing factors. You know,

553
00:32:35,000 --> 00:32:36,520
Speaker 4: As I said, there's always going to be a number

554
00:32:36,560 --> 00:32:39,280
Speaker 4: of reasons that an employee can points to as to

555
00:32:39,320 --> 00:32:42,440
Speaker 4: why a certain action is taken visa via employee. But

556
00:32:42,520 --> 00:32:44,960
Speaker 4: if you add an evidential burden that you have to

557
00:32:45,000 --> 00:32:48,400
Speaker 4: prove that the employer intended to make you feel like

558
00:32:48,400 --> 00:32:52,040
Speaker 4: you retaliate against, that enhances the burden. As I was

559
00:32:52,040 --> 00:32:54,880
Speaker 4: thinking about this, it would almost completely decall the retaliation

560
00:32:55,000 --> 00:32:58,640
Speaker 4: protection of Starving Doctley, because the burden to prove what

561
00:32:58,720 --> 00:33:00,920
Speaker 4: was in somebody's head when they took a certain action

562
00:33:01,840 --> 00:33:06,400
Speaker 4: is virtually impossible to meet absent a specific recorded phone

563
00:33:06,400 --> 00:33:10,080
Speaker 4: call or email, and most sophisticated of people in the

564
00:33:10,080 --> 00:33:12,480
Speaker 4: corporate bar know not to put these things in writing

565
00:33:12,480 --> 00:33:14,680
Speaker 4: in such a way that says, you know, we're firing

566
00:33:14,720 --> 00:33:17,600
Speaker 4: you because we're really bad that you reported this wrongdoing.

567
00:33:17,840 --> 00:33:20,640
Speaker 4: That would basically be the only paradigm for retaliation case.

568
00:33:20,800 --> 00:33:23,840
Speaker 4: If the Circuit Court's opinion was adopted, and to their credit,

569
00:33:23,960 --> 00:33:27,160
Speaker 4: un animously, the Supreme Court rejected that instead starving BOCCY

570
00:33:27,240 --> 00:33:30,800
Speaker 4: wasn't intended to be so strictly defined, and it's prescriptive

571
00:33:30,840 --> 00:33:33,920
Speaker 4: to employers, you shall not take any action because some

572
00:33:33,960 --> 00:33:38,240
Speaker 4: of the wrongdoing without putting it an intentionality requirement that

573
00:33:38,320 --> 00:33:40,480
Speaker 4: the Circuit Court superimposed into it.

574
00:33:41,040 --> 00:33:44,440
Speaker 1: Several business groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the

575
00:33:44,480 --> 00:33:50,040
Speaker 1: Securities Industry, and Financial Markets Association, had argued that establishing

576
00:33:50,040 --> 00:33:54,880
Speaker 1: a lower bar for employees would lead to employers being

577
00:33:55,000 --> 00:33:57,880
Speaker 1: hit with a lot more meritless claims.

578
00:33:59,160 --> 00:34:02,480
Speaker 4: Yeah, a common refrain, And I guess I should backtrack

579
00:34:02,560 --> 00:34:05,520
Speaker 4: for a second. I worked for three different companies between

580
00:34:05,520 --> 00:34:08,320
Speaker 4: my stints at the SEC, so I'm not anti corporate America,

581
00:34:08,400 --> 00:34:12,080
Speaker 4: and I understand, you know, certain perspectives that I brought in,

582
00:34:12,160 --> 00:34:16,080
Speaker 4: but it's it's very commonly complained about that. You know,

583
00:34:16,719 --> 00:34:20,680
Speaker 4: anytime the SEC tries to put in protections for whistleblowers, or,

584
00:34:20,840 --> 00:34:23,440
Speaker 4: in the case of dot Frank, build an incentive program

585
00:34:23,440 --> 00:34:26,880
Speaker 4: to incentivize people to come forward, the common refrain is

586
00:34:27,280 --> 00:34:30,040
Speaker 4: and we certainly heard this when in twenty and eleven

587
00:34:30,080 --> 00:34:32,919
Speaker 4: we were putting together rules for the new whistle Bowl

588
00:34:32,960 --> 00:34:35,520
Speaker 4: program under dot Frank. We got a lot of comments like,

589
00:34:35,880 --> 00:34:37,600
Speaker 4: you don't know what you're asking for, SEC. You're going

590
00:34:37,600 --> 00:34:39,759
Speaker 4: to be inundated with a lot of nonsense. You know,

591
00:34:40,360 --> 00:34:43,200
Speaker 4: HR complaints, my boss is a jerk, and it would

592
00:34:43,200 --> 00:34:47,120
Speaker 4: basically overwhelm the SEC's intake systems. And you know, I

593
00:34:47,120 --> 00:34:49,440
Speaker 4: think the SEC was thoughtful about that and try to

594
00:34:49,440 --> 00:34:50,960
Speaker 4: put in rules. You know, you have to sign the

595
00:34:51,000 --> 00:34:55,120
Speaker 4: TCR independalty perjury and it has aspects of if you're

596
00:34:55,160 --> 00:34:57,800
Speaker 4: doing this in bad faith, you could put yourself in jequardy.

597
00:34:58,000 --> 00:34:59,680
Speaker 4: And I think what we found at least, you know,

598
00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:02,000
Speaker 4: certainly had my five and a half years running the

599
00:35:02,000 --> 00:35:04,320
Speaker 4: whistle blower program with the SEC, we were not overwhelmed

600
00:35:04,320 --> 00:35:07,360
Speaker 4: with nonsense. There was a lot of very valuable information

601
00:35:07,400 --> 00:35:10,440
Speaker 4: brought to us about retaliation cases. And the SEC has

602
00:35:10,560 --> 00:35:15,800
Speaker 4: availed itself of its new retaliation jurisdiction to penalize companies

603
00:35:15,840 --> 00:35:18,200
Speaker 4: for retaliation. But I don't think anybody, including the Chamber,

604
00:35:18,480 --> 00:35:21,880
Speaker 4: would argue that it has been an overwhelming landslide of

605
00:35:21,960 --> 00:35:25,840
Speaker 4: retaliation case and the SEC has easily jumped in on

606
00:35:26,160 --> 00:35:29,480
Speaker 4: what that base was a disagreement between an employer and employee.

607
00:35:29,560 --> 00:35:32,360
Speaker 4: They've only taken action for retaliation when it was clear

608
00:35:32,719 --> 00:35:37,040
Speaker 4: via the timeline and via other circumstances that a person

609
00:35:37,440 --> 00:35:39,040
Speaker 4: who was doing a fine job as far as he

610
00:35:39,120 --> 00:35:42,960
Speaker 4: or she knew it comes to the employer's attention that

611
00:35:43,040 --> 00:35:44,720
Speaker 4: ron doing is being investigated, and all of a sudden,

612
00:35:44,760 --> 00:35:47,040
Speaker 4: really bad things start to happen. Those are the kinds

613
00:35:47,040 --> 00:35:49,440
Speaker 4: of cases that you see that the SEC has brought.

614
00:35:49,920 --> 00:35:53,000
Speaker 4: And so I know and I understand that the knee

615
00:35:53,040 --> 00:35:56,920
Speaker 4: jerk reaction whenever a progress of lower rule statue the

616
00:35:56,960 --> 00:35:59,360
Speaker 4: Supreme Court ruling comes down is, oh boy, this is

617
00:35:59,400 --> 00:36:03,080
Speaker 4: going to create you know, a whole groundswell of bad outcomes,

618
00:36:03,080 --> 00:36:05,720
Speaker 4: and the SEC will be overwhelmed. You know, they already

619
00:36:05,760 --> 00:36:07,759
Speaker 4: have limited resources and they're not to be able to

620
00:36:07,800 --> 00:36:10,320
Speaker 4: handle all the nonsense they're going to get, when in fact,

621
00:36:10,480 --> 00:36:12,719
Speaker 4: I don't know that there's any empirical data that backs up.

622
00:36:12,840 --> 00:36:14,919
Speaker 4: You know, I think a lot of gnashing of teeth

623
00:36:15,000 --> 00:36:17,719
Speaker 4: often happens in the hypothetical and then you say, okay,

624
00:36:18,080 --> 00:36:20,399
Speaker 4: show me an example. People are hard pressed to come

625
00:36:20,480 --> 00:36:24,359
Speaker 4: with a definitive example of that actually happens. So while

626
00:36:24,360 --> 00:36:28,040
Speaker 4: I'm sympathetic, and I understand uncertainly is an unhappy development

627
00:36:28,320 --> 00:36:31,719
Speaker 4: for in house council of people who represent companies. Everyone

628
00:36:31,760 --> 00:36:33,440
Speaker 4: loves to have a black and white you know, if

629
00:36:33,440 --> 00:36:34,920
Speaker 4: you do this, you'll stay on the right side of

630
00:36:34,920 --> 00:36:36,560
Speaker 4: a log. If you do that, you'll be on the

631
00:36:36,600 --> 00:36:38,680
Speaker 4: wrong side. But you know that's not the way the

632
00:36:38,760 --> 00:36:41,120
Speaker 4: legal process works. It's certainly not the way compliance works.

633
00:36:41,480 --> 00:36:44,120
Speaker 4: They're always going to be elements of gray, and you know,

634
00:36:44,360 --> 00:36:46,000
Speaker 4: I think the SEC as a track record of not

635
00:36:46,080 --> 00:36:49,080
Speaker 4: chipping into the gray on the wrong side. To invite

636
00:36:49,200 --> 00:36:52,600
Speaker 4: all kinds of nonsensical retaliation claims that they take up

637
00:36:52,880 --> 00:36:55,160
Speaker 4: and advocate on behalf of the worst the law. I

638
00:36:55,160 --> 00:36:56,799
Speaker 4: think you have to look at the data, you know,

639
00:36:56,960 --> 00:36:59,480
Speaker 4: don't look at the complaints or they worry, look at

640
00:36:59,480 --> 00:37:01,640
Speaker 4: what actually happen. And I think if you prepare those

641
00:37:01,880 --> 00:37:05,080
Speaker 4: all of the doomsday scenarios that even the whistleblower program,

642
00:37:05,239 --> 00:37:07,399
Speaker 4: you know, there was a lot of apocalyptic language about

643
00:37:07,440 --> 00:37:10,440
Speaker 4: this is going to destroy eternal compliance and everyone's going

644
00:37:10,480 --> 00:37:12,000
Speaker 4: to run to the SEC, and no one's going to

645
00:37:12,000 --> 00:37:14,640
Speaker 4: be loyal to their companies. We're eleven, twelve years in

646
00:37:14,680 --> 00:37:17,200
Speaker 4: and the data doesn't support all of that Doom's Day rhetoric,

647
00:37:17,239 --> 00:37:19,240
Speaker 4: and I think it's similar to what was being argued

648
00:37:19,239 --> 00:37:21,279
Speaker 4: in connections to starving doctory divisions.

649
00:37:21,360 --> 00:37:24,120
Speaker 1: It's great to see this from the perspective of the

650
00:37:24,160 --> 00:37:27,960
Speaker 1: SEC whistleblower program. Thanks so much, Sean. That's Sean mckessee,

651
00:37:28,000 --> 00:37:30,400
Speaker 1: a partner at Phillips and Cohen. And that's it for

652
00:37:30,440 --> 00:37:33,480
Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can

653
00:37:33,520 --> 00:37:36,440
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news by subscribing and listening

654
00:37:36,480 --> 00:37:40,200
Speaker 1: to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg

655
00:37:40,239 --> 00:37:44,319
Speaker 1: dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and

656
00:37:44,440 --> 00:37:45,680
Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg