1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,440 --> 00:00:12,959
Speaker 1: New York Attorney General Leticia James that her civil investigation

3
00:00:13,000 --> 00:00:16,880
Speaker 1: of the Trump organization has morphed into a criminal investigation,

4
00:00:17,360 --> 00:00:20,240
Speaker 1: making her the second state official who might bring criminal

5
00:00:20,360 --> 00:00:24,640
Speaker 1: charges against the former president. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Fans Jr.

6
00:00:24,680 --> 00:00:28,560
Speaker 1: Has Also been investigating Trump for potential criminal behavior and

7
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:31,000
Speaker 1: won a court fight to get access to his federal

8
00:00:31,040 --> 00:00:35,520
Speaker 1: tax returns. Joining me is Gregg Ferrell, Bloomberg Legal reporter. So, Greg,

9
00:00:35,640 --> 00:00:39,960
Speaker 1: what's the focus of the New York AGS investigation? It

10
00:00:40,040 --> 00:00:44,879
Speaker 1: has primarily been around certain properties, most notably Seven Springs

11
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:48,839
Speaker 1: up in Westchester County, certain properties that it appears as

12
00:00:48,840 --> 00:00:51,320
Speaker 1: though the Trump organization was able to apply for like

13
00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:55,680
Speaker 1: a conservation easement allowing a big tax abatement, but that

14
00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:57,640
Speaker 1: the amount of the abatement is based on a much

15
00:00:57,720 --> 00:01:01,040
Speaker 1: higher valuation of the property than what a local real

16
00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:04,040
Speaker 1: estate broker would tell you. In other words, you know,

17
00:01:04,080 --> 00:01:06,840
Speaker 1: the one million dollar abatement is based on like, uh,

18
00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:08,800
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if it's two or three hundred million

19
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:12,399
Speaker 1: dollar valuation of the property. The property has been either

20
00:01:12,480 --> 00:01:15,559
Speaker 1: on the market or a praised at less than twenty

21
00:01:15,560 --> 00:01:18,640
Speaker 1: million dollars, so to value it for the purpose of

22
00:01:18,640 --> 00:01:21,000
Speaker 1: getting a bigger tax benefit at ten times that amount

23
00:01:21,440 --> 00:01:23,520
Speaker 1: is something that the a g. S Office has been

24
00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:26,120
Speaker 1: looking into the Attorney General of New York. There are

25
00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:29,440
Speaker 1: certain things that are in their purview. One is charity,

26
00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:34,000
Speaker 1: charitable organizations, and to that extent, the AGES Office, Letitia

27
00:01:34,080 --> 00:01:37,240
Speaker 1: James in her predecessor Barbara Underwood, have been very aggressive

28
00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:39,800
Speaker 1: about going after the Trump Foundation, to the point where

29
00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:42,959
Speaker 1: the Trump Foundation has been shut down. So the other area,

30
00:01:43,120 --> 00:01:46,760
Speaker 1: you know, in their bailiwick is taxes, and so this

31
00:01:46,840 --> 00:01:49,280
Speaker 1: is the focus that James has brought to it. We

32
00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:51,640
Speaker 1: don't know everything she's looking at, but presumably there are

33
00:01:51,680 --> 00:01:56,160
Speaker 1: other probably similar discrepancies for other claims that benefit the

34
00:01:56,160 --> 00:01:59,280
Speaker 1: Trump organization tax wise. Whether or not it's it's wrong

35
00:01:59,400 --> 00:02:03,520
Speaker 1: or just an aggressive kind of valuation that a normal

36
00:02:03,560 --> 00:02:06,320
Speaker 1: person might want to use every April fift, that's to

37
00:02:06,320 --> 00:02:09,519
Speaker 1: be determined. But that's been her focus. In the Manhattan

38
00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:15,240
Speaker 1: DA's investigation started with the hush money payments. Where is

39
00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:18,720
Speaker 1: that at this point? So that grew out of the

40
00:02:18,760 --> 00:02:22,400
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen saga several years ago, and Michael Cohen, the

41
00:02:22,440 --> 00:02:25,840
Speaker 1: former personal lawyer's Donald Trump, ended up leading guilty to

42
00:02:25,880 --> 00:02:28,880
Speaker 1: her a number of crimes, but the one that started

43
00:02:28,919 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 1: his problems was a campaign finance violation that grew out

44
00:02:32,600 --> 00:02:36,000
Speaker 1: of some hush money payments he made on behalf of

45
00:02:36,080 --> 00:02:39,920
Speaker 1: candidate one. As the indictment from the Southern District of

46
00:02:39,919 --> 00:02:42,480
Speaker 1: New York to describe it, hush money payments he made

47
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:45,560
Speaker 1: to Stormy Daniels basically for the purpose that she would

48
00:02:45,560 --> 00:02:49,320
Speaker 1: not say anything about her alleged affair with Donald Trump

49
00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:51,640
Speaker 1: years and years earlier. This came at a time just

50
00:02:51,720 --> 00:02:54,720
Speaker 1: weeks before the sixteen elections, so given all that was

51
00:02:54,760 --> 00:02:56,960
Speaker 1: going on that time, it would have been hurtful to

52
00:02:57,080 --> 00:03:02,360
Speaker 1: candidate number one, obviously, Donald Trump if some basically you know,

53
00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:06,480
Speaker 1: porn star actress claimed some kind of a liaison that

54
00:03:06,480 --> 00:03:10,639
Speaker 1: would hurt him with the evangelical community, possibly back then.

55
00:03:10,720 --> 00:03:14,480
Speaker 1: So Michael Cohen was charged with campaign finance violations, but

56
00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:18,079
Speaker 1: no one neither obviously not the president nor any executive

57
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:21,519
Speaker 1: from the Trump organization was charged. However, the fact that

58
00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:25,040
Speaker 1: came out of that prosecution indicated that Cohen was reimbursed

59
00:03:26,160 --> 00:03:29,600
Speaker 1: while Trump was president through the Trump Organization through a

60
00:03:29,600 --> 00:03:33,200
Speaker 1: series of monthly retainer payments over a ten month period

61
00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:36,080
Speaker 1: that more than made up for not only the hundred

62
00:03:36,120 --> 00:03:40,000
Speaker 1: thirty dollar payment, but the tax gross up associated with that,

63
00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:41,920
Speaker 1: as well as some kind of an extra bonus of

64
00:03:42,440 --> 00:03:46,560
Speaker 1: fifty or more for undescribed purposes, But that was not

65
00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:49,440
Speaker 1: in the paperwork. The paperwork didn't say this monthly payment

66
00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 1: to my cohen is to reimburse him for paying off

67
00:03:51,760 --> 00:03:54,680
Speaker 1: a porn star. Instead, it was positioned as a retainer,

68
00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:57,040
Speaker 1: which would be a normal type of thing you'd expect

69
00:03:57,120 --> 00:03:59,360
Speaker 1: to have a lawyer on. In the state of New York,

70
00:03:59,760 --> 00:04:02,600
Speaker 1: there is a law that companies have to maintain accurate

71
00:04:02,600 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 1: books and records. And it's not so much that you

72
00:04:05,240 --> 00:04:08,200
Speaker 1: know they have to get all the pennies and dollars correct.

73
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:11,920
Speaker 1: It's also basically the purpose of the law. It to

74
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:15,720
Speaker 1: prevent companies from laundering, if you will, or using making

75
00:04:15,840 --> 00:04:20,279
Speaker 1: up phony invoices to paper over or cover illicit activity,

76
00:04:20,279 --> 00:04:23,880
Speaker 1: fraudulent activity. So you can't pay off someone or pay

77
00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:26,480
Speaker 1: a bribe to someone, but just described that as an

78
00:04:26,480 --> 00:04:30,479
Speaker 1: expenditure for new equipment or a retainer to a lawyer.

79
00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:33,920
Speaker 1: Those are just hypothetical examples. So that's a powerful law.

80
00:04:34,279 --> 00:04:36,880
Speaker 1: And when all this information came out about the way

81
00:04:36,920 --> 00:04:41,719
Speaker 1: the Trump organization, you know, classified its reimbursement to Michael Cohen,

82
00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:43,800
Speaker 1: it was clear that there might be a books and

83
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:47,640
Speaker 1: records violation here involving, you know, covering up what could

84
00:04:47,640 --> 00:04:51,000
Speaker 1: be described as fraudulent or unlawful activity. In addition to that,

85
00:04:51,200 --> 00:04:54,560
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen when he testified before the House Intelligence Committee

86
00:04:54,640 --> 00:04:57,720
Speaker 1: after he decided to plead guilty and when he was

87
00:04:57,960 --> 00:05:01,840
Speaker 1: basically saying he had come clean, he also mentioned some

88
00:05:01,960 --> 00:05:06,680
Speaker 1: other areas of vulnerability for the Trump organization, namely that

89
00:05:06,760 --> 00:05:10,640
Speaker 1: they would either low ball or highball asset values depending

90
00:05:10,640 --> 00:05:12,280
Speaker 1: on whether or not they were dealing with a bank

91
00:05:12,360 --> 00:05:14,320
Speaker 1: and looking for a loan, in which case, you know,

92
00:05:14,320 --> 00:05:17,000
Speaker 1: they might inflate the value of you know, they claimed

93
00:05:17,080 --> 00:05:20,479
Speaker 1: value of assets, or an insurance company they might claim that,

94
00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:22,200
Speaker 1: oh no, no, it's not worth that much, so that

95
00:05:22,240 --> 00:05:25,480
Speaker 1: the cost of carrying the insurance or insuring particular property

96
00:05:25,480 --> 00:05:28,480
Speaker 1: would be lower. So the d A's office has not

97
00:05:28,520 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 1: announced what it specifically is looking at, but in a

98
00:05:31,279 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 1: series of filings that emerged when during its eighteen month

99
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:37,719
Speaker 1: battle that led to the Supreme Court over getting Trump's

100
00:05:37,760 --> 00:05:40,719
Speaker 1: eight years of Trump tax returns. You know, the District

101
00:05:40,800 --> 00:05:44,520
Speaker 1: attorney did cite a number of instances where you know,

102
00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:47,880
Speaker 1: the media had claimed that from you know, basically, did

103
00:05:47,880 --> 00:05:51,159
Speaker 1: this uh as a basis or the areas in which

104
00:05:51,160 --> 00:05:52,920
Speaker 1: you want to look. So I think it's a safe

105
00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:56,440
Speaker 1: assumption that that's where the d a's criminal investigation has

106
00:05:56,480 --> 00:05:59,120
Speaker 1: been headed. The New York a G says they've informed

107
00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:02,040
Speaker 1: the Trump organization ation that the investigation is no longer

108
00:06:02,160 --> 00:06:06,279
Speaker 1: purely civil in nature, were now actively investigating the Trump

109
00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:09,920
Speaker 1: organization in a criminal capacity. What does that mean? Are

110
00:06:09,960 --> 00:06:12,640
Speaker 1: they doing more than what the Manhattan DA is doing?

111
00:06:12,680 --> 00:06:15,760
Speaker 1: What's going on? No, I think it's actually that sounds

112
00:06:15,800 --> 00:06:17,520
Speaker 1: kind of ominous, But the rest of the statement says

113
00:06:17,560 --> 00:06:20,359
Speaker 1: they're working closely with the Manhattan DA's office. And I

114
00:06:20,400 --> 00:06:24,120
Speaker 1: think what they are doing is that the ven diagram

115
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:26,560
Speaker 1: of what the d A's office looking at and what

116
00:06:26,880 --> 00:06:29,120
Speaker 1: Letitia James, the a g S office is looking at.

117
00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:31,360
Speaker 1: There are a number of issues like this a state

118
00:06:31,400 --> 00:06:34,080
Speaker 1: in Westchester that are of common interest to them. So

119
00:06:34,120 --> 00:06:37,360
Speaker 1: it makes no sensitive. Two different sets of lawyers, you know,

120
00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:40,440
Speaker 1: state lawyers looking and putting together their own cases, one

121
00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:43,320
Speaker 1: civil and one criminal. For this. So like in the

122
00:06:43,440 --> 00:06:46,720
Speaker 1: real world, I think basically, where there are you know,

123
00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:51,360
Speaker 1: overlaps and where Vance is doing something that has criminal implications,

124
00:06:51,920 --> 00:06:54,440
Speaker 1: the a g. S Office is basically going to cooperate

125
00:06:54,520 --> 00:06:56,440
Speaker 1: and work with them. And the way you do that

126
00:06:56,720 --> 00:07:00,159
Speaker 1: is by deputizing a couple of lawyers from the age's

127
00:07:00,200 --> 00:07:05,440
Speaker 1: office as basically assistant district attorneys or deputy district attorneys

128
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:08,880
Speaker 1: for the purpose of this investigation. So basically, you know,

129
00:07:08,960 --> 00:07:12,360
Speaker 1: a couple of people from Legitia James's office are going

130
00:07:12,400 --> 00:07:15,560
Speaker 1: to be deputized to work with Vance team directly and

131
00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:19,240
Speaker 1: get over whatever legal hurdles might otherwise exist keeping the

132
00:07:19,280 --> 00:07:22,840
Speaker 1: two you know, investigations separate. So it's not so much

133
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:26,920
Speaker 1: a huge expansion of her investigation, but it's a sharpening

134
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:30,160
Speaker 1: and it raises the stakes for people who are involved

135
00:07:30,160 --> 00:07:32,480
Speaker 1: in that. If you have a civil investigation and the

136
00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:35,680
Speaker 1: Trump organization and Trump himself have dealt with civil lawsuits

137
00:07:35,760 --> 00:07:37,640
Speaker 1: and dished them out, but on the business end of

138
00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:40,440
Speaker 1: them and on both sides of them over many years,

139
00:07:40,880 --> 00:07:42,320
Speaker 1: you know, if you're willing to play the game and

140
00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:44,880
Speaker 1: the lawyer it out and basically go after each other

141
00:07:44,880 --> 00:07:48,120
Speaker 1: in court over many years, um that's one way of

142
00:07:48,160 --> 00:07:50,920
Speaker 1: making a case go away or eventually, you know, make

143
00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:52,720
Speaker 1: some kind of a payment to make it go away

144
00:07:53,080 --> 00:07:56,360
Speaker 1: and no one gets hurt. Um Really, if something criminal,

145
00:07:56,440 --> 00:07:58,600
Speaker 1: people might get hurt. Somebody might get charged with a

146
00:07:58,640 --> 00:08:02,160
Speaker 1: crime and might face h else sent in somewhere. So suddenly,

147
00:08:02,200 --> 00:08:05,120
Speaker 1: if you're a senior executive of the Trump organization and

148
00:08:05,160 --> 00:08:07,440
Speaker 1: you've been dealing with the A g. S Office, you know,

149
00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:10,240
Speaker 1: the calculus changes, you know, with depending on what you

150
00:08:10,280 --> 00:08:13,240
Speaker 1: say or how you act, you know, you could get

151
00:08:13,320 --> 00:08:15,480
Speaker 1: dragged into a criminal case that you're hoping to avoid.

152
00:08:15,760 --> 00:08:19,440
Speaker 1: So I think it's more that's the the real you know,

153
00:08:19,560 --> 00:08:23,280
Speaker 1: the from her announcing this, uh that that she's working

154
00:08:23,280 --> 00:08:25,280
Speaker 1: with the d a's office as part of a criminal case,

155
00:08:25,400 --> 00:08:27,720
Speaker 1: is that this is more serious and now there's more

156
00:08:27,760 --> 00:08:30,480
Speaker 1: firepower for the d a's office to work with. And

157
00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:35,120
Speaker 1: also the Manhattan d A is the only known investigator

158
00:08:35,200 --> 00:08:40,719
Speaker 1: that has access to Trump's tax returns. Yes, but um

159
00:08:40,880 --> 00:08:43,200
Speaker 1: the as the as Attorney General of the State of

160
00:08:43,240 --> 00:08:47,839
Speaker 1: New York, um Letitia James, you know, since she's basically

161
00:08:48,080 --> 00:08:51,880
Speaker 1: reviews tax compliance in the state, she hasn't made any

162
00:08:51,880 --> 00:08:54,160
Speaker 1: statements this effect. But i'd be surprised if she doesn't

163
00:08:54,160 --> 00:08:57,400
Speaker 1: have at least Trump's state tax records already, because that

164
00:08:57,480 --> 00:08:59,840
Speaker 1: well within her power. She doesn't need to sue the

165
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:02,440
Speaker 1: unple organization to get them. She has the ability to

166
00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:06,199
Speaker 1: go straight to the state Office of State tax returns

167
00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:09,520
Speaker 1: and having them turn them over. And I'm sure, um,

168
00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:12,040
Speaker 1: you know that she's she's honored if she's done that.

169
00:09:12,400 --> 00:09:15,120
Speaker 1: You know all the secrecy and you know confidential aspects

170
00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:17,920
Speaker 1: of that, you know, not leaking it out, but using it,

171
00:09:18,280 --> 00:09:21,360
Speaker 1: using them material to look in to investigate the areas

172
00:09:21,400 --> 00:09:23,559
Speaker 1: that are of enters to her. So can the a

173
00:09:23,720 --> 00:09:28,199
Speaker 1: G bring criminal charges? Normally No, So that's why this

174
00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:31,720
Speaker 1: is significant. When when the AG finds through a course

175
00:09:31,800 --> 00:09:35,600
Speaker 1: of an investigation that might be civil in nature that

176
00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:38,720
Speaker 1: actually might be criminal activity. A you could turn it

177
00:09:38,760 --> 00:09:41,440
Speaker 1: over to someone like the Manhattan District Attorney or some

178
00:09:41,480 --> 00:09:43,600
Speaker 1: other district attorney another part of the state, depending on

179
00:09:43,600 --> 00:09:46,400
Speaker 1: where the conduct was. Um, you could turn it over

180
00:09:46,520 --> 00:09:48,520
Speaker 1: or in this case, since you've got your own full

181
00:09:48,520 --> 00:09:52,840
Speaker 1: boar investigation, work with that district attorney. So that's you know,

182
00:09:53,000 --> 00:09:55,280
Speaker 1: that's what's happening here. I think there are some rare

183
00:09:55,400 --> 00:09:59,000
Speaker 1: instances where the AG might be able to commence a

184
00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:03,000
Speaker 1: criminal prosecute of its own, but it's that's not basically

185
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:06,839
Speaker 1: what they do. It's a largely a consumer protection you know,

186
00:10:07,160 --> 00:10:10,360
Speaker 1: the consumer protection agency of the state, so you know,

187
00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:14,400
Speaker 1: its powers are overwhelmingly civil. In investigating the Trump organization,

188
00:10:14,440 --> 00:10:17,040
Speaker 1: let's talk about the Manhattan da for a second. Could

189
00:10:17,080 --> 00:10:22,040
Speaker 1: that lead to criminal charges against Trump personally or would

190
00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:25,760
Speaker 1: it just be against the organization. That could be all

191
00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:28,760
Speaker 1: of the above. So depending on what the d a's

192
00:10:28,800 --> 00:10:31,960
Speaker 1: office finds, they could make a case that it's not

193
00:10:32,080 --> 00:10:35,400
Speaker 1: clear whether any individuals senior individual of the Trump organization

194
00:10:36,080 --> 00:10:38,880
Speaker 1: normally or willfully proked the law by doing X, but

195
00:10:39,080 --> 00:10:42,319
Speaker 1: it's clearly the organization did. So we can sue the

196
00:10:42,600 --> 00:10:46,280
Speaker 1: Trump organization and uh, you know, end up getting some

197
00:10:46,360 --> 00:10:49,079
Speaker 1: kind of a settlement from that business entity, but not

198
00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:52,640
Speaker 1: the senior executives. Um, so that will be a charging

199
00:10:52,679 --> 00:10:56,040
Speaker 1: if if there is wrongful conduct there that they find

200
00:10:56,240 --> 00:10:59,160
Speaker 1: and uh, then that's a charging decision. Do we have

201
00:10:59,240 --> 00:11:02,360
Speaker 1: enough to go after an individual you know, at this

202
00:11:02,480 --> 00:11:06,520
Speaker 1: organization and you know, just to step back, um, you

203
00:11:06,559 --> 00:11:09,400
Speaker 1: know Trump, you know, is it has been or leased

204
00:11:10,240 --> 00:11:13,800
Speaker 1: before becoming president very much involved in every aspect of

205
00:11:13,840 --> 00:11:17,080
Speaker 1: the Trump organization. The Trump organization is not General Motors,

206
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:19,240
Speaker 1: you know. It's not a company with hundreds of thousands

207
00:11:19,280 --> 00:11:22,080
Speaker 1: of employees and all sorts of far fling offices. It

208
00:11:22,160 --> 00:11:25,120
Speaker 1: is a mom and pop store that has this prestige

209
00:11:25,160 --> 00:11:29,040
Speaker 1: brand and branded products and branded properties around the world.

210
00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:32,000
Speaker 1: But it's it's Trump and his kids and a very

211
00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:35,280
Speaker 1: very small cast of others, and everything we've learned about

212
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:38,440
Speaker 1: Trump as a manager, you know, and the fact that

213
00:11:38,600 --> 00:11:41,680
Speaker 1: even the kids don't make unilourial decisions, but they make

214
00:11:41,720 --> 00:11:44,160
Speaker 1: sure they get approval from him before doing things, at

215
00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:48,560
Speaker 1: least up through to indicates that if there is wrongful conduct,

216
00:11:48,679 --> 00:11:50,360
Speaker 1: it would be difficult for him to say like, oh,

217
00:11:50,360 --> 00:11:52,800
Speaker 1: I had no idea, because he really is, you know,

218
00:11:52,960 --> 00:11:55,560
Speaker 1: at the center of all the business activity of the

219
00:11:55,559 --> 00:12:00,600
Speaker 1: Trump organization. Another person at the center is Alan Weiselberg,

220
00:12:00,640 --> 00:12:03,880
Speaker 1: who is the chief financial officer of the Trump organization,

221
00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:07,199
Speaker 1: and there appears to be an effort to get him

222
00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:11,280
Speaker 1: to cooperate with the investigation. His former daughter in law

223
00:12:11,360 --> 00:12:14,480
Speaker 1: is cooperating with both the investigation by the New York

224
00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:19,160
Speaker 1: AG and the Manhattan DA, So is there pressure here

225
00:12:19,160 --> 00:12:22,880
Speaker 1: to try to get him yeah, clearly, and Bloomberg and

226
00:12:22,880 --> 00:12:25,560
Speaker 1: a number of the news organizations you know, wrote that

227
00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:28,080
Speaker 1: I think back in March that based on some of

228
00:12:28,080 --> 00:12:32,360
Speaker 1: the early interviews with people, yes, like you know, the

229
00:12:32,400 --> 00:12:35,679
Speaker 1: former daughter in law of Trump CFO, Allen Weislberg, it

230
00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:39,240
Speaker 1: seemed clear that the d a's office was going down

231
00:12:39,280 --> 00:12:42,719
Speaker 1: the road of trying to get enough gather enough information

232
00:12:43,240 --> 00:12:48,120
Speaker 1: to hopefully get Weislberg himself the CFO to flip uh.

233
00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:51,240
Speaker 1: That would be a tremendous shortcut if they could succeed

234
00:12:51,280 --> 00:12:54,439
Speaker 1: at that effort. Guy like Weislberg, you know, knows everything

235
00:12:54,440 --> 00:12:57,240
Speaker 1: about Trump finances. He's been doing this job for decades,

236
00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:00,079
Speaker 1: even before Trump himself took over, he worked for or

237
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:03,160
Speaker 1: Trump's father, so you know everything about the organization. He

238
00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:06,240
Speaker 1: controls all the flows of funds. And we should note

239
00:13:06,280 --> 00:13:09,760
Speaker 1: that in Michael Cohen's prosecution at the federal level, in

240
00:13:11,320 --> 00:13:15,600
Speaker 1: the prosecutors from the Southern District of New York gave Weislberg,

241
00:13:15,720 --> 00:13:20,040
Speaker 1: I guess a temporary or at least specific limited immunity

242
00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:25,200
Speaker 1: from prosecution to cooperate around the narrow area of Michael Cohen.

243
00:13:25,400 --> 00:13:27,960
Speaker 1: So presumably that's where their information came about. You know,

244
00:13:28,120 --> 00:13:31,840
Speaker 1: how the payments and the retainers were constructed in order

245
00:13:31,840 --> 00:13:37,040
Speaker 1: to compensate Cohen for paying Stormy Daniels off, so Weiselberg

246
00:13:37,080 --> 00:13:40,679
Speaker 1: got limited immunity. They are clearly here, and you know

247
00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:43,240
Speaker 1: it's clear that the federal prosecutors did that, because that's

248
00:13:43,280 --> 00:13:45,640
Speaker 1: the easiest way to get this done is go through

249
00:13:45,640 --> 00:13:49,880
Speaker 1: the guy who constructed and probably either constructed or facilitated

250
00:13:49,880 --> 00:13:52,640
Speaker 1: the payment to Cohen. He knows information like that on

251
00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:56,240
Speaker 1: almost every transaction. So if there are other transactions that

252
00:13:56,280 --> 00:13:59,600
Speaker 1: are questionable or worth more further review or open to

253
00:13:59,640 --> 00:14:02,920
Speaker 1: inter rotation, if the d A's obviously could get Weislberg

254
00:14:03,000 --> 00:14:05,600
Speaker 1: on board, Weislberg will be able to tell them, you know,

255
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:07,520
Speaker 1: this was the purpose, this is why we did X,

256
00:14:07,800 --> 00:14:09,680
Speaker 1: this is why we did why, this is why we

257
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:12,719
Speaker 1: didn't tell so and so about what we were doing, etcetera.

258
00:14:13,240 --> 00:14:15,760
Speaker 1: Looking forward, if there are ever going to be criminal

259
00:14:15,840 --> 00:14:18,839
Speaker 1: charges against the Trump organization or against Trump himself, the

260
00:14:18,920 --> 00:14:21,480
Speaker 1: d a's office, it would help a lot for them

261
00:14:21,520 --> 00:14:23,520
Speaker 1: to have some kind of a serpa, some kind of

262
00:14:23,520 --> 00:14:27,480
Speaker 1: a guide within the organization, someone with credibility and direct

263
00:14:27,560 --> 00:14:30,800
Speaker 1: knowledge saying, yeah, this is why we did this. If

264
00:14:30,840 --> 00:14:32,920
Speaker 1: you look back and you and I have talked about

265
00:14:32,960 --> 00:14:36,520
Speaker 1: Enron before. UM. One of the key breakthroughs of the

266
00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:40,040
Speaker 1: Enron task Force was getting the company's chief financial officer,

267
00:14:40,080 --> 00:14:43,440
Speaker 1: Andy Fastau to plead guilty and cooperate because once you

268
00:14:43,560 --> 00:14:46,040
Speaker 1: have him the CFO on board, he can tell you

269
00:14:46,440 --> 00:14:48,320
Speaker 1: the purpose of this, the purpose of that, and the

270
00:14:48,360 --> 00:14:50,360
Speaker 1: purpose of the other thing, and it makes it very

271
00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:53,640
Speaker 1: easy to spelling out clearly to a jury that you know,

272
00:14:53,760 --> 00:14:56,920
Speaker 1: the conduct that was going on was wrongful, and the

273
00:14:56,920 --> 00:14:59,000
Speaker 1: people who were doing this knew what was wrong at

274
00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:03,720
Speaker 1: the time. A deposition was ordered of Eric Trump in

275
00:15:03,760 --> 00:15:09,680
Speaker 1: the AGES investigation, Do we ever find out what was said? No,

276
00:15:09,880 --> 00:15:13,080
Speaker 1: that's uh, you know, still being held within the AGES office,

277
00:15:13,400 --> 00:15:15,360
Speaker 1: and there was a bit of a kerfuffle over I

278
00:15:15,400 --> 00:15:16,920
Speaker 1: think over whether or not he was going to have

279
00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:20,480
Speaker 1: the time to do it. Um. You know, he decided

280
00:15:20,880 --> 00:15:23,960
Speaker 1: ultimately to go ahead and give that. But no, that's

281
00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:27,480
Speaker 1: not been been made public. Does James involvement now this

282
00:15:27,560 --> 00:15:33,560
Speaker 1: sort of united front? Does that ensure that because Cyrus

283
00:15:33,600 --> 00:15:36,680
Speaker 1: Fans is not running for d A again, that whoever

284
00:15:36,760 --> 00:15:40,640
Speaker 1: takes over that that investigation will go forward. Is that

285
00:15:40,760 --> 00:15:42,560
Speaker 1: part of this or is that not even pot No?

286
00:15:42,640 --> 00:15:44,160
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think that's separate. I think

287
00:15:44,200 --> 00:15:46,960
Speaker 1: it's just a strange coincidence that this is going on

288
00:15:47,000 --> 00:15:48,800
Speaker 1: in a year in which Sivance has decided not to

289
00:15:48,880 --> 00:15:53,400
Speaker 1: run for your election. So, uh, you know, whoever succeeds

290
00:15:53,480 --> 00:15:57,560
Speaker 1: him next January will inherit what exists of the Trump organization,

291
00:15:58,160 --> 00:16:01,520
Speaker 1: uh investigation and it's partnership with the A G. S Office,

292
00:16:01,760 --> 00:16:04,280
Speaker 1: So you know, I don't think so. I think this

293
00:16:04,320 --> 00:16:06,840
Speaker 1: would have happened either way even if Fans was still there.

294
00:16:07,240 --> 00:16:10,080
Speaker 1: Thanks for being the Bloomberg Law Show, Greg. That's Bloomberg

295
00:16:10,160 --> 00:16:14,680
Speaker 1: Legal reporter Greg Farrell. You may not know who Melinda

296
00:16:14,720 --> 00:16:18,000
Speaker 1: and French is, but you surely know who Melinda Gates is.

297
00:16:18,600 --> 00:16:22,360
Speaker 1: As Bill and Melinda Gates divorce, the question arises, what's

298
00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:25,440
Speaker 1: the value of a last name, especially when that name

299
00:16:25,520 --> 00:16:28,000
Speaker 1: is Gates and the Gates fortune is valued at over

300
00:16:29,160 --> 00:16:31,840
Speaker 1: billion dollars? Joining me as Gregg bord all On, a

301
00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:34,960
Speaker 1: professor at the University of Maine School of Law. When

302
00:16:34,960 --> 00:16:39,400
Speaker 1: a woman marries, what determines whether her last name is

303
00:16:39,880 --> 00:16:43,040
Speaker 1: changed to her husband's legally? So I want to I

304
00:16:43,080 --> 00:16:46,360
Speaker 1: want to clarify obviously, since the Spreme Court devision two

305
00:16:46,360 --> 00:16:49,640
Speaker 1: thou fifteen. We're not necessarily talking about gender based name changes.

306
00:16:49,640 --> 00:16:52,800
Speaker 1: Although historically it is a woman who takes a man's

307
00:16:52,840 --> 00:16:58,640
Speaker 1: last name, the legal argument for valuing surnames with respect

308
00:16:58,640 --> 00:17:01,840
Speaker 1: to assets and mental divisions can happen across the genders.

309
00:17:01,840 --> 00:17:05,040
Speaker 1: So with that preface, to answer your question directly, it's

310
00:17:05,040 --> 00:17:08,679
Speaker 1: simply historical custom that couples who decide to enter into

311
00:17:09,119 --> 00:17:11,680
Speaker 1: the marriage union agree to take the name of one

312
00:17:11,680 --> 00:17:16,280
Speaker 1: spouse or a combination of both spouses, or retain their

313
00:17:17,040 --> 00:17:20,080
Speaker 1: birth name throughout the duration of the marriage. So you

314
00:17:20,160 --> 00:17:23,400
Speaker 1: get married, you're a woman, you want to use your

315
00:17:23,480 --> 00:17:27,600
Speaker 1: husband's last name. Do you have to file any papers

316
00:17:27,800 --> 00:17:31,080
Speaker 1: or just start using the name? It depends on the state,

317
00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:33,280
Speaker 1: And I think that's one of the fascinating points about

318
00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:36,520
Speaker 1: this issue. Certainly, if if the matters that were related

319
00:17:36,560 --> 00:17:38,920
Speaker 1: to the article I wrote or address in a divorce decree,

320
00:17:38,960 --> 00:17:42,000
Speaker 1: they're all moot. But the idea of how that name

321
00:17:42,119 --> 00:17:46,240
Speaker 1: changes legally is pretty diverse across the fifty states. Some

322
00:17:46,359 --> 00:17:49,040
Speaker 1: states have a legal requirement where you actually have to

323
00:17:49,080 --> 00:17:51,920
Speaker 1: go down to a courthouse and do a proper name change,

324
00:17:51,960 --> 00:17:55,280
Speaker 1: just as anyone would irrespective of marriage others have the

325
00:17:55,400 --> 00:17:57,800
Speaker 1: series of presumptions right that you change your name in

326
00:17:57,840 --> 00:18:00,840
Speaker 1: a Social Security car to driver's license. They rise to

327
00:18:00,880 --> 00:18:03,919
Speaker 1: these levels of customary presumptions that your name has changed

328
00:18:04,160 --> 00:18:06,720
Speaker 1: so much to the point that when you get out

329
00:18:06,720 --> 00:18:09,440
Speaker 1: of that marriage, your name is still legally the name

330
00:18:09,480 --> 00:18:11,879
Speaker 1: you had when you changed it through custom And so

331
00:18:11,920 --> 00:18:14,399
Speaker 1: that patchwork of laws is something that I think I

332
00:18:14,440 --> 00:18:17,560
Speaker 1: want to explore next and how that patchwork relates to

333
00:18:17,600 --> 00:18:19,800
Speaker 1: the point of the article, the valuing of the name.

334
00:18:20,119 --> 00:18:22,400
Speaker 1: Can you use one form of your name, let's say,

335
00:18:22,440 --> 00:18:25,800
Speaker 1: your name as a single person, in your personal life

336
00:18:25,840 --> 00:18:29,359
Speaker 1: and another in your professional life? I think so. And again,

337
00:18:29,400 --> 00:18:31,840
Speaker 1: to be clear, the article is focusing on sort of

338
00:18:31,920 --> 00:18:34,480
Speaker 1: monetonzation of the name. It's It has nothing to do,

339
00:18:34,520 --> 00:18:38,080
Speaker 1: of course, with the personal preferences of the personal choices

340
00:18:38,119 --> 00:18:40,800
Speaker 1: within the institution of marriage. Why people would decide to

341
00:18:40,920 --> 00:18:43,399
Speaker 1: use or not use a name. There are a whole

342
00:18:43,440 --> 00:18:47,040
Speaker 1: hopes of reasons that I believe family law colleagues address

343
00:18:47,200 --> 00:18:50,000
Speaker 1: in the context of the law and social issues, um

344
00:18:50,040 --> 00:18:54,199
Speaker 1: if children want the names of certain parents, etcetera. But

345
00:18:55,000 --> 00:18:57,080
Speaker 1: I would not see a reason why a person would

346
00:18:57,080 --> 00:18:59,840
Speaker 1: be able to use the name commercially at an easier

347
00:19:00,080 --> 00:19:03,920
Speaker 1: to say, uh, then personally um. But then it gets

348
00:19:03,920 --> 00:19:06,639
Speaker 1: into the idea of sort of the property element of

349
00:19:06,680 --> 00:19:09,760
Speaker 1: the name doesn't have some sort of monetary value. Is

350
00:19:09,800 --> 00:19:12,840
Speaker 1: it a form of intellectual property if you're using it

351
00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:17,280
Speaker 1: only for professional or commercial reasons, does that somehow impact

352
00:19:17,320 --> 00:19:19,560
Speaker 1: those presumptions I talked about that the state may have

353
00:19:19,640 --> 00:19:23,320
Speaker 1: on whether or not your name changes. So let's discuss

354
00:19:23,640 --> 00:19:26,040
Speaker 1: some of the questions that come up when there's a divorce.

355
00:19:26,600 --> 00:19:30,800
Speaker 1: Can the woman continue to use her ex husband's name. Yeah,

356
00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:35,360
Speaker 1: irrespective of the patchwork that I talked about with with states,

357
00:19:35,400 --> 00:19:37,440
Speaker 1: the clear answer I think for most states, of course,

358
00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:39,960
Speaker 1: is that the answer to that is yes, that the

359
00:19:40,040 --> 00:19:42,920
Speaker 1: custom if it is a state with have these customary

360
00:19:42,920 --> 00:19:45,919
Speaker 1: presumptions the name stays the same legally, of course, if

361
00:19:45,960 --> 00:19:47,720
Speaker 1: it's a formal declaration, you have to do it on

362
00:19:47,680 --> 00:19:49,719
Speaker 1: the court your name, the name is still yours and

363
00:19:49,800 --> 00:19:52,480
Speaker 1: you can use it. The opposite of that is true too,

364
00:19:52,760 --> 00:19:55,040
Speaker 1: meaning that when you get out of the union that

365
00:19:55,080 --> 00:19:58,640
Speaker 1: has legally changed the name, whether by mandate or by custom,

366
00:19:58,720 --> 00:20:01,000
Speaker 1: you have to do some other eagle mechanism to get

367
00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:03,400
Speaker 1: out of the name. And that's why most divorce petitions

368
00:20:03,880 --> 00:20:06,960
Speaker 1: when they are filed have a separate section for what

369
00:20:07,000 --> 00:20:08,359
Speaker 1: are you going to do about your name? Are you

370
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:10,040
Speaker 1: going to change your name or you're gonna keep your name?

371
00:20:10,080 --> 00:20:12,280
Speaker 1: And I think what's interesting about the economic value of

372
00:20:12,280 --> 00:20:14,040
Speaker 1: the name is that in this particular case that I

373
00:20:14,040 --> 00:20:16,040
Speaker 1: wrote about, Melinda Gates actually checked the box it said

374
00:20:16,080 --> 00:20:19,840
Speaker 1: she intends to continue using the Gates name. So so

375
00:20:20,560 --> 00:20:23,639
Speaker 1: you mentioned Turner in your article. Is that why she

376
00:20:23,760 --> 00:20:27,320
Speaker 1: asked the judge to allow her to continue to use

377
00:20:27,320 --> 00:20:31,080
Speaker 1: the name Turner? Well, um, yeah, I guess I was

378
00:20:31,119 --> 00:20:32,960
Speaker 1: inspired because I watched What's Love Got to Do with

379
00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:36,200
Speaker 1: It Again? Right, you know, popular story. But I believe

380
00:20:36,280 --> 00:20:37,679
Speaker 1: this is how it happened. Was that she was going

381
00:20:37,720 --> 00:20:39,600
Speaker 1: to absolve all assets that she was entitled to as

382
00:20:39,600 --> 00:20:41,280
Speaker 1: part of the mapital community. Right. She didn't want to

383
00:20:41,280 --> 00:20:43,600
Speaker 1: be revenue from any songwroles he should covert with like Turner.

384
00:20:43,680 --> 00:20:45,440
Speaker 1: She said, you know, and I'm paraphrasing here, all I

385
00:20:45,480 --> 00:20:47,160
Speaker 1: want is the name. I worked hard for that name.

386
00:20:47,440 --> 00:20:49,040
Speaker 1: I want to use that name. And I guess yes,

387
00:20:49,080 --> 00:20:52,200
Speaker 1: the presumption would be that she wanted that name because

388
00:20:52,240 --> 00:20:54,879
Speaker 1: that was the name that she would be recognized under professionally,

389
00:20:55,160 --> 00:20:57,720
Speaker 1: if it's not mentioned in the divorce petition, if it

390
00:20:57,840 --> 00:21:02,879
Speaker 1: is not an affirmative red west for incidental relief to

391
00:21:02,960 --> 00:21:06,160
Speaker 1: get out of the marriage. Can the spouse who originally

392
00:21:06,200 --> 00:21:08,000
Speaker 1: had the name come back at any time in the

393
00:21:08,040 --> 00:21:10,320
Speaker 1: future and say, hold on, hold on, this person is

394
00:21:10,440 --> 00:21:13,720
Speaker 1: using my name. I'm entitled to some of the fruits

395
00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:16,160
Speaker 1: of the use of that name. And I would imagine,

396
00:21:16,200 --> 00:21:19,200
Speaker 1: since this is an open question now to that specific point,

397
00:21:19,480 --> 00:21:21,160
Speaker 1: that the answer to that is know is that you've

398
00:21:21,200 --> 00:21:24,359
Speaker 1: essentially you waived your right to do that, since you

399
00:21:24,400 --> 00:21:27,480
Speaker 1: didn't do it at the beginning with the divorce petition.

400
00:21:27,760 --> 00:21:31,199
Speaker 1: Just to be clear, can the husband, let's say it's

401
00:21:31,240 --> 00:21:35,239
Speaker 1: manum here. Can the husband say at the divorce I

402
00:21:35,320 --> 00:21:38,439
Speaker 1: don't want her to keep using my last name. I

403
00:21:38,440 --> 00:21:40,720
Speaker 1: would imagine it's like any other civil cause of action.

404
00:21:40,800 --> 00:21:43,520
Speaker 1: He can say it. She would be legally entitled to

405
00:21:43,600 --> 00:21:46,080
Speaker 1: it based on the presumptions or the customs, or by

406
00:21:46,280 --> 00:21:49,360
Speaker 1: legally having it changed, right whatever the state law allows

407
00:21:49,840 --> 00:21:52,080
Speaker 1: the spouse who has adopted the new name to keep,

408
00:21:52,359 --> 00:21:54,639
Speaker 1: so he can certainly allege that I would like to

409
00:21:55,280 --> 00:21:58,280
Speaker 1: have my soon to be former wife removed the use

410
00:21:58,320 --> 00:22:01,480
Speaker 1: of that family name. That would probably be and I

411
00:22:01,480 --> 00:22:04,120
Speaker 1: haven't really practiced family law that detailed in the past.

412
00:22:04,160 --> 00:22:06,440
Speaker 1: It would probably be an issue of compromise, right, Well,

413
00:22:06,640 --> 00:22:08,520
Speaker 1: you get to keep the house, we split the assets

414
00:22:08,600 --> 00:22:10,040
Speaker 1: this way. But this is how I want the name

415
00:22:10,040 --> 00:22:12,639
Speaker 1: to use. And in reality, when you're not dealing with

416
00:22:12,680 --> 00:22:15,520
Speaker 1: billions of dollars, that's that's how it's dealt, right, It's

417
00:22:15,560 --> 00:22:17,920
Speaker 1: it's dealt as part of the incident of the divorce.

418
00:22:18,440 --> 00:22:21,760
Speaker 1: And but I do not believe that there is any

419
00:22:22,320 --> 00:22:25,440
Speaker 1: sort of direct legal way that a man can say

420
00:22:25,760 --> 00:22:29,120
Speaker 1: you now must stop using my last name. The name

421
00:22:29,280 --> 00:22:31,720
Speaker 1: is essentially the former spouses and it now becomes the

422
00:22:31,720 --> 00:22:34,919
Speaker 1: other spouses upon divorce. So now, how do you determine

423
00:22:35,080 --> 00:22:39,439
Speaker 1: the value of a name? Have any cases spoken about this? Not,

424
00:22:39,720 --> 00:22:42,000
Speaker 1: I believe in the context of this specific ipsh you.

425
00:22:42,520 --> 00:22:45,600
Speaker 1: They have talked about, more generally, in the context of

426
00:22:45,600 --> 00:22:49,160
Speaker 1: intellectual property cases, the value of a name. And that's

427
00:22:49,160 --> 00:22:52,400
Speaker 1: why I believe most states make it a little bit

428
00:22:52,440 --> 00:22:55,160
Speaker 1: more onerous for people to change their name if they

429
00:22:55,240 --> 00:22:58,760
Speaker 1: seek to change their name to to get to reap

430
00:22:58,800 --> 00:23:02,000
Speaker 1: economic benefits of the name change. Right, So I can't

431
00:23:02,080 --> 00:23:05,679
Speaker 1: go down to the county courthouse where I live and

432
00:23:05,760 --> 00:23:08,159
Speaker 1: change my name to Elvis Presley. There would probably be

433
00:23:08,240 --> 00:23:11,240
Speaker 1: some additional burden for me to prove to ensure that

434
00:23:11,280 --> 00:23:13,680
Speaker 1: I'm not committing fraud that the estate of Elvis Presley

435
00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:17,439
Speaker 1: would would want to protect against. But how that issue

436
00:23:17,680 --> 00:23:20,880
Speaker 1: just what is your name sort of reconciles with this

437
00:23:20,920 --> 00:23:23,480
Speaker 1: issue the custom of marriage is what I think is fascinating,

438
00:23:23,560 --> 00:23:25,800
Speaker 1: right because that name does change, whether it be legally

439
00:23:25,920 --> 00:23:29,159
Speaker 1: or formally, and then since that person is entitled to

440
00:23:29,200 --> 00:23:32,800
Speaker 1: that name post dissolution of marriage, you can't really make

441
00:23:32,840 --> 00:23:35,320
Speaker 1: that person change the name. As we just talked about,

442
00:23:35,920 --> 00:23:38,159
Speaker 1: what are the rights of the other spouse if that

443
00:23:38,280 --> 00:23:41,960
Speaker 1: name is then subsequently used for economic gain? And that's

444
00:23:42,000 --> 00:23:44,680
Speaker 1: the open question that I don't believe a court has addressed.

445
00:23:45,040 --> 00:23:49,680
Speaker 1: So putting it in the Milinda Gates Bill Gates divorce situation,

446
00:23:50,359 --> 00:23:53,160
Speaker 1: if Malinda Gates in the future comes up with some

447
00:23:53,880 --> 00:23:57,679
Speaker 1: huge discovery on her own, would Bill Gates have not

448
00:23:57,840 --> 00:24:00,080
Speaker 1: that he would do this, but would he have the

449
00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:03,840
Speaker 1: claims to the profits from that? Here there is a

450
00:24:03,920 --> 00:24:06,800
Speaker 1: mechanism by which this probably could, if it happens to

451
00:24:06,840 --> 00:24:09,760
Speaker 1: become an issue, be analyzed and it's the it's the

452
00:24:09,800 --> 00:24:13,800
Speaker 1: goodwill element of how businesses are are valued. So even

453
00:24:13,840 --> 00:24:16,159
Speaker 1: though the particular particular issue we're talking about has not

454
00:24:16,200 --> 00:24:19,679
Speaker 1: come up in a divorce, the issue of spouse joint

455
00:24:19,720 --> 00:24:23,359
Speaker 1: owned businesses and how those assets are divided very often

456
00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:25,960
Speaker 1: come up in divorce. And so how do you value

457
00:24:26,000 --> 00:24:28,600
Speaker 1: the business. You have to go into businesses propensity to

458
00:24:28,640 --> 00:24:32,280
Speaker 1: make money in the future with estimates known as enterprise goodwill,

459
00:24:32,960 --> 00:24:36,000
Speaker 1: and so the sub element to that is called personal goodwill.

460
00:24:36,040 --> 00:24:38,520
Speaker 1: And I really think that there is a direct way

461
00:24:38,680 --> 00:24:42,720
Speaker 1: for state courts in marital dissolution cases to apply this

462
00:24:42,800 --> 00:24:47,800
Speaker 1: issue of name recognition through that personal goodwill avenue. Can

463
00:24:47,800 --> 00:24:50,199
Speaker 1: you sell it up for us here? It's not an

464
00:24:50,200 --> 00:24:52,840
Speaker 1: issue if it's called foreign divorce, which we already talked about,

465
00:24:52,840 --> 00:24:55,119
Speaker 1: and most of the time it is. It's not an issue,

466
00:24:55,119 --> 00:24:57,880
Speaker 1: to be incredibly candid, for people who don't have sizeable

467
00:24:57,920 --> 00:25:00,480
Speaker 1: assets to divide, right, And it's not had an issue

468
00:25:00,480 --> 00:25:04,600
Speaker 1: for anybody who uses the name in a context outside

469
00:25:04,600 --> 00:25:07,719
Speaker 1: of their personal context. So you're really only left with

470
00:25:07,920 --> 00:25:11,760
Speaker 1: um millionaires and billionaire spouses who use the name independent

471
00:25:11,840 --> 00:25:14,719
Speaker 1: of their personal existence. That's a that's not a lot

472
00:25:14,720 --> 00:25:16,959
Speaker 1: of people left. So it's only if you use it

473
00:25:17,200 --> 00:25:21,160
Speaker 1: in a professional context. Yeah, I think so, right, because

474
00:25:21,160 --> 00:25:24,280
Speaker 1: there's really nothing the value right um. And I think

475
00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:27,199
Speaker 1: a judge would probably be very much not inclined to

476
00:25:27,280 --> 00:25:31,399
Speaker 1: tell a former husband hypothetically to say, now you cannot

477
00:25:31,440 --> 00:25:33,840
Speaker 1: make here soon to be former wife, stop using this

478
00:25:33,960 --> 00:25:37,119
Speaker 1: name if she is asserting in a personal context, this

479
00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:39,000
Speaker 1: is what binds me to the children, This is what

480
00:25:39,080 --> 00:25:42,320
Speaker 1: helps the children socialize um, to me as their mother

481
00:25:42,480 --> 00:25:45,000
Speaker 1: now that the marriages is dissolved, those sorts of things.

482
00:25:45,000 --> 00:25:47,040
Speaker 1: So I don't really see this would ever come up.

483
00:25:47,400 --> 00:25:48,560
Speaker 1: I don't see how it could come up in a

484
00:25:48,560 --> 00:25:51,880
Speaker 1: personal context because there's really no valuing um, economic valuing

485
00:25:52,240 --> 00:25:54,880
Speaker 1: that has to happen. What made you decide to write

486
00:25:54,920 --> 00:25:57,760
Speaker 1: about this? It's the fascinating contact. I mean, it is

487
00:25:57,800 --> 00:26:01,720
Speaker 1: a Western tradition that has been round probably thousands of years, right,

488
00:26:02,359 --> 00:26:06,000
Speaker 1: but there's not really been this deep dot discussion of Okay,

489
00:26:06,040 --> 00:26:09,639
Speaker 1: so what are the the asset valuation implications of that

490
00:26:09,840 --> 00:26:13,120
Speaker 1: once the bond that puts the name there no longer exists.

491
00:26:13,440 --> 00:26:15,880
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Lawn Show. Greg. That's

492
00:26:15,880 --> 00:26:19,200
Speaker 1: Greg Bordelina, Professor at the University of Maine School of Law.

493
00:26:19,920 --> 00:26:22,280
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

494
00:26:22,720 --> 00:26:24,720
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

495
00:26:24,760 --> 00:26:28,280
Speaker 1: a Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

496
00:26:28,400 --> 00:26:33,080
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law.

497
00:26:33,320 --> 00:26:36,280
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso. Thanks so much for listening, and please

498
00:26:36,320 --> 00:26:38,800
Speaker 1: tune into Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

499
00:26:38,880 --> 00:26:40,800
Speaker 1: Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio