WEBVTT - US Crackdown on Sanctions Cheats Turning to Art Works

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:12.000
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna start with a friend of Harris who's going

0:00:12.039 --> 0:00:14.400
<v Speaker 1>to have some idea where the French art has been hidden.

0:00:14.480 --> 0:00:18.400
<v Speaker 1>How can I hope who was still stolen? Not the

0:00:18.480 --> 0:00:20.479
<v Speaker 1>Nazis are taken everything with him. So we have to

0:00:20.520 --> 0:00:23.479
<v Speaker 1>get as close to the front as we can. Look

0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:26.360
<v Speaker 1>at this. That says if Hitler dies or if Germany falls,

0:00:26.360 --> 0:00:30.720
<v Speaker 1>there to destroy everything everything. Toward the end of World

0:00:30.760 --> 0:00:34.560
<v Speaker 1>War Two, an army unit nicknamed the monuments Men race

0:00:34.680 --> 0:00:38.040
<v Speaker 1>to track down and recover priceless artwork stolen by the

0:00:38.120 --> 0:00:41.800
<v Speaker 1>Nazis before it could be destroyed or moved. The movie

0:00:41.880 --> 0:00:45.760
<v Speaker 1>aptlete titled The monuments Men, is based on their recovery

0:00:45.760 --> 0:00:48.400
<v Speaker 1>of more than five million works of art. It may

0:00:48.440 --> 0:00:50.840
<v Speaker 1>not be as dramatic as going into a war zone,

0:00:51.120 --> 0:00:54.360
<v Speaker 1>but today federal prosecutors in New York, known as the

0:00:54.440 --> 0:00:57.880
<v Speaker 1>Klepto Captured Task Force, are working to track down and

0:00:57.920 --> 0:01:01.480
<v Speaker 1>sees artworks boad or sold by Russian oligarchs as long

0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:05.280
<v Speaker 1>as ten years ago, even targeting specific works of art

0:01:05.440 --> 0:01:09.320
<v Speaker 1>like Mornes Lebasan on Nefia and serving subpoenas on high

0:01:09.440 --> 0:01:12.680
<v Speaker 1>end auction houses. The goal is to get the assets

0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:15.760
<v Speaker 1>before they can be moved to another jurisdiction. Joining me

0:01:15.800 --> 0:01:19.840
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eva Benny Morrison. Eva tell us

0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:25.480
<v Speaker 1>how the US expanded sanctions targeting Russian businessmen since the

0:01:25.520 --> 0:01:29.640
<v Speaker 1>invasion of Ukraine last year. Since the invasion of Ukraine,

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:32.959
<v Speaker 1>and the US government has expanded the number of individuals

0:01:32.959 --> 0:01:35.920
<v Speaker 1>that are on the sanctions list, and this was to

0:01:36.319 --> 0:01:39.959
<v Speaker 1>put a lot of pressure on Russia and in protests

0:01:39.959 --> 0:01:42.840
<v Speaker 1>in opposition to what they were doing in Ukraine. The

0:01:42.959 --> 0:01:47.600
<v Speaker 1>US was targeting businessmen and their companies who had ties trutin.

0:01:48.000 --> 0:01:51.640
<v Speaker 1>Number of these businessmen multi billionaires. They have an interest

0:01:51.720 --> 0:01:55.960
<v Speaker 1>in the final things my real estate, artwork, yachts, cars,

0:01:56.120 --> 0:01:57.840
<v Speaker 1>and all the rest of those things. And some of

0:01:57.880 --> 0:02:00.840
<v Speaker 1>those assets have been contained and brought old traders in

0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:04.880
<v Speaker 1>the US. So it's definitely impacted some of those items.

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:10.040
<v Speaker 1>So what are federal prosecutors looking into specifically with these

0:02:10.040 --> 0:02:11.880
<v Speaker 1>works of art and all the rest of it. The

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:14.640
<v Speaker 1>US has had sanctions with for a long time, but

0:02:14.720 --> 0:02:18.120
<v Speaker 1>there seems to be a real laser focus at the

0:02:18.200 --> 0:02:22.120
<v Speaker 1>moment on figuring out if any of those sanctions are

0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:26.920
<v Speaker 1>being violated for federal prosecutors attached to this relatively new

0:02:27.000 --> 0:02:31.840
<v Speaker 1>task force called Clepto Capture trying to track down assets

0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:34.960
<v Speaker 1>like artwork and Middle States that was bought and sold

0:02:35.040 --> 0:02:38.520
<v Speaker 1>by Russian oligarchs anywhere from five to ten years ago.

0:02:39.080 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 1>We've seen this focus in the art world. Recently, what's

0:02:42.800 --> 0:02:46.200
<v Speaker 1>been happening is prosecutors are sending subpoenas to some of

0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:49.400
<v Speaker 1>the major auction houses based in New York asking for

0:02:49.720 --> 0:02:54.480
<v Speaker 1>any information to do with transactions with Russian oligarchs or

0:02:54.639 --> 0:02:58.160
<v Speaker 1>with any shell companies that are known to be associated

0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:02.320
<v Speaker 1>with those individuals. And over the past twelve to eighteen months,

0:03:02.360 --> 0:03:07.160
<v Speaker 1>those inquiries have narrowed, so rather than just seeing prosecutors

0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:11.840
<v Speaker 1>are asking for information about particular individuals Oleg Dairy, Pasca,

0:03:12.280 --> 0:03:15.280
<v Speaker 1>Roman and Bromovich and a few other very well known

0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:19.679
<v Speaker 1>Russian oligarchs, they're also asking for specific pieces of artwork,

0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:22.640
<v Speaker 1>So that suggests that they've got some sort of intel

0:03:22.800 --> 0:03:26.320
<v Speaker 1>about particular works that were bought and sold by these

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:30.760
<v Speaker 1>individuals or by companies linked to them. We've seen offshore

0:03:30.960 --> 0:03:35.840
<v Speaker 1>as well. There's been a yacht owned by a Russian

0:03:35.880 --> 0:03:38.920
<v Speaker 1>olgark that has been frozen off the coast of Spain,

0:03:39.120 --> 0:03:42.720
<v Speaker 1>another one in the South Pacific, and there's also been

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 1>real estate in d C and here in New York

0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:48.600
<v Speaker 1>City that's been rated by the FBI is part of

0:03:48.600 --> 0:03:52.960
<v Speaker 1>these investigations. Prosecutors alleged that these two properties in particular

0:03:53.240 --> 0:03:56.360
<v Speaker 1>are linked to Russian billionaire by the name of ol

0:03:56.480 --> 0:04:00.360
<v Speaker 1>Dairy Pasca. So the Department of Justice has indicated recently

0:04:00.600 --> 0:04:06.080
<v Speaker 1>that they're planning to commence civil forfeiture proceedings against those properties.

0:04:06.280 --> 0:04:09.160
<v Speaker 1>So are they not only looking at sanctions violations? Are

0:04:09.160 --> 0:04:12.880
<v Speaker 1>they also looking at possible money laundering? Yes, the two

0:04:13.000 --> 0:04:16.120
<v Speaker 1>sort of go hand in hand, I guess because some

0:04:16.200 --> 0:04:19.160
<v Speaker 1>of the allegations in these types of cases usually are

0:04:19.200 --> 0:04:23.960
<v Speaker 1>based around the fact that these assets like artwork, property, yachts,

0:04:24.279 --> 0:04:29.400
<v Speaker 1>were obtained through ill gotten games, so that ties into

0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:32.640
<v Speaker 1>the offense of money laundering. It can be very difficult

0:04:32.680 --> 0:04:37.240
<v Speaker 1>to prosecute these sanctions cases, but that is definitely one

0:04:37.279 --> 0:04:40.880
<v Speaker 1>line of inquiry that prosecutors are going down, and a

0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:44.640
<v Speaker 1>bit of an associators avenue. I guess that they're looking

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:48.800
<v Speaker 1>at is the facilitators who exist around these oligarchs. We

0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:51.720
<v Speaker 1>saw recently in the past couple of weeks there were

0:04:51.720 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 1>a couple of associates allegedly tied to that same oligarch

0:04:55.800 --> 0:04:59.680
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned earlier Oleg dairy Pasca, who are accused of

0:04:59.680 --> 0:05:03.840
<v Speaker 1>money laundering and helping that oligarch of aide transaction. As

0:05:03.880 --> 0:05:07.440
<v Speaker 1>you said that these sanctions cases are difficult to prosecute

0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:11.280
<v Speaker 1>why a lot of these individuals are based offshore to

0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:15.920
<v Speaker 1>start with, and secondly, it's not as easy as one

0:05:15.960 --> 0:05:19.360
<v Speaker 1>of certain's best friends or his lawyer or his banker

0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:22.960
<v Speaker 1>walking into an art gallery in Chelsea and buying a

0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:27.720
<v Speaker 1>magnificent piece of artwork. A lot of these transactions are

0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:32.279
<v Speaker 1>done through shell companies, relatives, names have been used in

0:05:32.320 --> 0:05:35.560
<v Speaker 1>the past to purchase these kinds of assets, so it

0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:37.960
<v Speaker 1>takes a very long time to sort of pick apart

0:05:38.120 --> 0:05:41.920
<v Speaker 1>the web of corporate structures and other obscurities to try

0:05:41.960 --> 0:05:45.400
<v Speaker 1>and figure out who the ultimate beneficial owner is of

0:05:45.440 --> 0:05:48.680
<v Speaker 1>a particular assets. And one of the defenses that has

0:05:48.720 --> 0:05:51.520
<v Speaker 1>been thrown up before from some of these oligarchs is

0:05:51.800 --> 0:05:54.520
<v Speaker 1>all that property, all that asset is owned by a

0:05:54.600 --> 0:05:57.520
<v Speaker 1>relative or a family member. It's not owned by may

0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:00.360
<v Speaker 1>So that's why it can be particularly difficult to sort

0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:04.120
<v Speaker 1>of way through all those complexities and jump over all

0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:09.279
<v Speaker 1>those legal barricades. There are some very famous artworks involved here.

0:06:09.320 --> 0:06:13.560
<v Speaker 1>When you mentioned your story, bought by fertilizer tycoon Andre

0:06:13.880 --> 0:06:19.240
<v Speaker 1>Melnichenko was a mone that he paid apparently almost fifty

0:06:19.240 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 1>million dollars for. So are they looking to prevent them

0:06:23.080 --> 0:06:25.360
<v Speaker 1>from being moved? Are they looking to seize these so

0:06:25.440 --> 0:06:29.280
<v Speaker 1>that they can stop any movement. Yes, they're going back

0:06:29.320 --> 0:06:33.680
<v Speaker 1>and looking at artwork that these oligarchs had bought or

0:06:33.720 --> 0:06:36.159
<v Speaker 1>sold many years ago and trying to figure out where

0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:39.720
<v Speaker 1>they are now. Prosecutors are going back through years and

0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:43.080
<v Speaker 1>years of records figure out whether artworks previously bought and

0:06:43.120 --> 0:06:46.080
<v Speaker 1>sold by Russian oligarchs who are now in the sanctions

0:06:46.120 --> 0:06:48.520
<v Speaker 1>list have been moved out of the country. If they

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:51.279
<v Speaker 1>have in the past twelve months from after the most

0:06:51.320 --> 0:06:53.920
<v Speaker 1>recent round of sanctions, or even the individuals who Room

0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:56.640
<v Speaker 1>of Sanctions listens to doesn't eighteen, that would be a

0:06:56.720 --> 0:06:59.480
<v Speaker 1>violation of those sanctions. Who are trying to figure out

0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:02.080
<v Speaker 1>where those work are, if they have been moved out

0:07:02.080 --> 0:07:03.960
<v Speaker 1>of the country, how long ago they were moved out

0:07:03.960 --> 0:07:06.880
<v Speaker 1>of the country, how they got out, whose names that

0:07:06.920 --> 0:07:09.240
<v Speaker 1>they were shipped out of as well. You know a

0:07:09.320 --> 0:07:12.000
<v Speaker 1>number of these oliser, their taste for art and their

0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:15.120
<v Speaker 1>interest in art has been very well documented. And we're

0:07:15.120 --> 0:07:17.960
<v Speaker 1>talking pieces worth millions and millions and millions of dollars.

0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:22.120
<v Speaker 1>So it's been very interesting, I guess the prosecutors to

0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:25.560
<v Speaker 1>try and figure out where some of these artworks are.

0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:28.040
<v Speaker 1>And there's a recent case actually where one of the

0:07:28.080 --> 0:07:31.080
<v Speaker 1>oliser had bought more than a dozen pieces of artwork

0:07:31.120 --> 0:07:33.040
<v Speaker 1>in two thousand and eight and they just sat in

0:07:33.080 --> 0:07:36.600
<v Speaker 1>a storage facility in New York until two thousand and

0:07:37.200 --> 0:07:40.560
<v Speaker 1>eighteen nineteen, when someone who worked for him tried to

0:07:40.800 --> 0:07:43.120
<v Speaker 1>have him set out of the country. Yeah, and that

0:07:43.480 --> 0:07:48.800
<v Speaker 1>man has been indicted, Graham Bottom Carter, and he's fighting extradition,

0:07:49.360 --> 0:07:52.880
<v Speaker 1>that's right. He's based in the UK, Graham Bottom Carter,

0:07:53.320 --> 0:07:57.120
<v Speaker 1>and he was working for over Dairy Pasca, and the

0:07:57.200 --> 0:08:00.480
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors alleged that while he was based in the UK,

0:08:00.800 --> 0:08:05.000
<v Speaker 1>he contacted an auction house in New York and tried

0:08:05.040 --> 0:08:08.640
<v Speaker 1>to pass off Derry Pasker's artworks as his own. He

0:08:08.760 --> 0:08:10.880
<v Speaker 1>tried to have them shipped from the auction house in

0:08:10.920 --> 0:08:14.200
<v Speaker 1>New York to London, which would have been a clear

0:08:14.280 --> 0:08:17.160
<v Speaker 1>violation of trade sanctions, but it was actually the auction

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:20.080
<v Speaker 1>house that raised red flag in the first place. They

0:08:20.120 --> 0:08:23.120
<v Speaker 1>went through their records and saw that the artworks had

0:08:23.120 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>actually been purchased from under the name of a shell

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:28.720
<v Speaker 1>company which was linked to Derry Paska more than ten

0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:32.000
<v Speaker 1>years ago. And they challenged Graham Bonham Carter around this,

0:08:32.240 --> 0:08:34.240
<v Speaker 1>and he tried to push back. He said, just give

0:08:34.280 --> 0:08:36.000
<v Speaker 1>me a little bit more time and I'll come up

0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:38.280
<v Speaker 1>with some proof to show that it is mine. And

0:08:38.640 --> 0:08:41.600
<v Speaker 1>he's my credit card statement showing that I'm paying for

0:08:41.600 --> 0:08:44.520
<v Speaker 1>the shipping. But it just wasn't enough to convince the

0:08:44.559 --> 0:08:47.640
<v Speaker 1>auction house that the artworks were in fact his, and

0:08:47.679 --> 0:08:50.760
<v Speaker 1>they ended up reporting it to OSPAK, which is a

0:08:50.840 --> 0:08:53.240
<v Speaker 1>part of the Treasury Department in the US that looks

0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:56.840
<v Speaker 1>after the sanctions. So have all the major auction houses

0:08:56.960 --> 0:09:01.959
<v Speaker 1>cooperated with subpoenas and quest for information. When I went

0:09:02.000 --> 0:09:04.800
<v Speaker 1>to the auction houses last week as part of this reporting,

0:09:05.280 --> 0:09:07.760
<v Speaker 1>most of them said that yes, we do corporate with

0:09:07.840 --> 0:09:10.760
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement when they ask, and from what I heard

0:09:10.760 --> 0:09:13.280
<v Speaker 1>from talking to different sources and the industry and legal

0:09:13.320 --> 0:09:16.440
<v Speaker 1>sources as well, they do hand over the information when

0:09:16.520 --> 0:09:19.320
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors are asking for it. It's not good for business

0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:22.920
<v Speaker 1>to be violating trade sanctions. It comes with massive fines,

0:09:23.040 --> 0:09:25.280
<v Speaker 1>and it was already a lot of attention on the

0:09:25.400 --> 0:09:28.520
<v Speaker 1>art world. In particular, there was a Senate report in

0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:31.440
<v Speaker 1>two thousand and twenty that looked at money laundering in

0:09:31.440 --> 0:09:35.040
<v Speaker 1>the art world, and it highlighted a very high profile

0:09:35.080 --> 0:09:39.960
<v Speaker 1>example where two brothers from Russia, the Rottenberg's, very wealthy individuals,

0:09:40.400 --> 0:09:43.679
<v Speaker 1>managed to evade trade sanctions and purchase some pieces of

0:09:43.760 --> 0:09:47.959
<v Speaker 1>artwork from US based auction houses by using a shell company.

0:09:48.280 --> 0:09:51.320
<v Speaker 1>Ever since then that the industry has really made an

0:09:51.320 --> 0:09:55.000
<v Speaker 1>effort to implement their own compliance programs, even though that

0:09:55.080 --> 0:09:58.440
<v Speaker 1>it's not legislated by law, to try and make sure

0:09:58.960 --> 0:10:02.040
<v Speaker 1>that won't happen again, and because it really gives some

0:10:02.160 --> 0:10:04.480
<v Speaker 1>of parts of the industry and the auction houses a

0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:07.520
<v Speaker 1>bad name, and they definitely don't want that. So eva

0:10:07.559 --> 0:10:12.080
<v Speaker 1>despite the major auction houses implementing voluntary anti money laundering

0:10:12.120 --> 0:10:15.760
<v Speaker 1>programs and even some including in contracts that the buyer

0:10:15.840 --> 0:10:19.920
<v Speaker 1>or seller not be sanctioned or engaged in criminal activity,

0:10:20.480 --> 0:10:23.360
<v Speaker 1>it still may not be enough to prevent the true

0:10:23.400 --> 0:10:28.040
<v Speaker 1>owners of artworks from shielding themselves behind these webs of

0:10:28.120 --> 0:10:33.559
<v Speaker 1>corporate structures or relatives exactly, and there's not a huge

0:10:34.000 --> 0:10:38.560
<v Speaker 1>legal requirements on auction houses to dig very deep to

0:10:38.640 --> 0:10:41.840
<v Speaker 1>try and figure out who the ultimate beneficial owner of

0:10:41.840 --> 0:10:45.199
<v Speaker 1>an artwork is. One of the big debates that were

0:10:45.200 --> 0:10:50.440
<v Speaker 1>sparked by report was whether the art industry should be

0:10:50.640 --> 0:10:55.040
<v Speaker 1>subject to the same banking and financial regulation requirements as

0:10:55.200 --> 0:10:57.760
<v Speaker 1>the rest of the financial industry. So that would be

0:10:57.800 --> 0:11:00.200
<v Speaker 1>the same as some of the big banks and the

0:11:00.360 --> 0:11:04.280
<v Speaker 1>art industry. Different auction houses private sellers would have to

0:11:04.280 --> 0:11:10.319
<v Speaker 1>create money laundering programs which are very time intensive, cost intensive,

0:11:10.720 --> 0:11:13.040
<v Speaker 1>and it would impose a lot especially on some of

0:11:13.040 --> 0:11:16.280
<v Speaker 1>those smaller sellers which don't have the same resources as

0:11:16.320 --> 0:11:20.320
<v Speaker 1>the big financial institutions. That hasn't happened yet, so you know,

0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:23.280
<v Speaker 1>some of the big auction houses say that they make

0:11:24.000 --> 0:11:26.640
<v Speaker 1>a concerted effort to try and figure out who the

0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:30.040
<v Speaker 1>ultimate beneficial lineries of the piece of artwork, To go

0:11:30.240 --> 0:11:33.040
<v Speaker 1>and figure out who owns the company that pursues in

0:11:33.080 --> 0:11:35.800
<v Speaker 1>the artwork. They don't want to miss any red flags.

0:11:35.800 --> 0:11:39.319
<v Speaker 1>But they're doing that voluntarily. It's not a legal requirement,

0:11:39.480 --> 0:11:42.280
<v Speaker 1>so there are still some details that can fall through

0:11:42.320 --> 0:11:44.760
<v Speaker 1>the cracks. I spoke to one attorney who put it

0:11:45.160 --> 0:11:47.960
<v Speaker 1>very accurately when he said, it's not like Putain's banker

0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:51.080
<v Speaker 1>is going to walk into an art gallery on Madison

0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:54.880
<v Speaker 1>Avenue and by a percsper Is there any estimate about

0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:58.480
<v Speaker 1>how many millions or tens of millions or hundreds of

0:11:58.520 --> 0:12:02.240
<v Speaker 1>millions of dollars of art work are involved. That's a

0:12:02.280 --> 0:12:05.360
<v Speaker 1>really good question, not that I've seen, to be honest,

0:12:05.400 --> 0:12:08.160
<v Speaker 1>from the interviews that I did from this reporting, it

0:12:08.280 --> 0:12:11.760
<v Speaker 1>seemed as if prosecutors were sort of just starting to

0:12:11.800 --> 0:12:15.120
<v Speaker 1>figure out who owned what, and they were starting to

0:12:15.240 --> 0:12:17.880
<v Speaker 1>name different pieces of artwork and different scupoenas they were

0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:20.720
<v Speaker 1>setting to the auction houses so they might start to

0:12:20.760 --> 0:12:24.080
<v Speaker 1>get a better picture, I guess of how much artwork

0:12:24.360 --> 0:12:27.200
<v Speaker 1>is left in the US that is actually owned by

0:12:27.240 --> 0:12:30.280
<v Speaker 1>some of these sanctioned individuals. Just reminds me in some

0:12:30.360 --> 0:12:34.840
<v Speaker 1>ways of the monuments men who tracked down Nazi stolen

0:12:34.960 --> 0:12:38.640
<v Speaker 1>art in World War Two. And it's interesting this same U. S.

0:12:38.679 --> 0:12:41.360
<v Speaker 1>Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York has

0:12:41.360 --> 0:12:46.360
<v Speaker 1>had a few successful investigations in seizing artwork that was

0:12:46.400 --> 0:12:50.920
<v Speaker 1>stolen by the Nazis two and they've used the same

0:12:51.080 --> 0:12:53.480
<v Speaker 1>proceedings and sort of the same approach I guess in

0:12:53.559 --> 0:12:56.960
<v Speaker 1>these cases civil asset forfeiture. Sort of interesting to see

0:12:56.960 --> 0:12:59.480
<v Speaker 1>whether they have the same results. Here. There is one

0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:02.640
<v Speaker 1>interesting example when you asked me about whether they're looking

0:13:02.640 --> 0:13:05.400
<v Speaker 1>at money laundering. One of the individuals who was named

0:13:05.400 --> 0:13:09.280
<v Speaker 1>in the subpoenas was Roman and Bromovich, who's one of

0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:12.160
<v Speaker 1>the more well known Russian oligarchs who used to own

0:13:12.640 --> 0:13:16.000
<v Speaker 1>the football team in Chelsea. He's actually not sanctioned in

0:13:16.040 --> 0:13:18.880
<v Speaker 1>the US, unlike the others who are named the subpoenas,

0:13:18.960 --> 0:13:22.280
<v Speaker 1>and Bromovich is sanctioned in the UK, which I thought

0:13:22.360 --> 0:13:26.480
<v Speaker 1>was interesting because it wouldn't be as simple as looking

0:13:26.520 --> 0:13:29.320
<v Speaker 1>at him the trade sanctions violations in the US. And

0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:31.800
<v Speaker 1>when I asked a few different attorneys about these and

0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:34.720
<v Speaker 1>who practiced in this space, they said that because he

0:13:34.880 --> 0:13:37.920
<v Speaker 1>is sanctioned in the UK, prosecutors could be looking at

0:13:37.920 --> 0:13:41.360
<v Speaker 1>whether he is trying to get around those sanctions and

0:13:41.520 --> 0:13:44.800
<v Speaker 1>use the US financial system, which would be through a

0:13:44.800 --> 0:13:47.640
<v Speaker 1>form of money laundering. So I think that's a pretty

0:13:47.720 --> 0:13:51.679
<v Speaker 1>key example as well. That's how prosecutors are looking at

0:13:51.720 --> 0:13:55.840
<v Speaker 1>trade sanctions violations as a whole money laundering definitely comes

0:13:55.920 --> 0:13:58.080
<v Speaker 1>under that. It's a great story. I know a lot

0:13:58.160 --> 0:14:00.880
<v Speaker 1>of research went into it. Thanks so much, Ava. That's

0:14:00.920 --> 0:14:06.520
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Legal reporter Ava Benny Morrison. Elon Musk is building

0:14:06.559 --> 0:14:10.040
<v Speaker 1>on his teflon Elon Street cred winning a case in

0:14:10.080 --> 0:14:12.959
<v Speaker 1>which it seemed like the odds were stacked against him.

0:14:13.120 --> 0:14:16.719
<v Speaker 1>Investors claimed that Musk defraunded them when he tweeted four

0:14:16.760 --> 0:14:19.640
<v Speaker 1>and a half years ago that he was considering taking

0:14:19.680 --> 0:14:23.760
<v Speaker 1>Tesla private and had funding secured to make the deal happen.

0:14:24.360 --> 0:14:27.560
<v Speaker 1>It was a risky trial that many high profile executives

0:14:27.560 --> 0:14:30.600
<v Speaker 1>would have avoided by reaching an out of court settlement,

0:14:30.960 --> 0:14:33.720
<v Speaker 1>and Musk could have been on the hook for billions,

0:14:33.720 --> 0:14:37.520
<v Speaker 1>but he escaped unscathed. After a three week trial in

0:14:37.560 --> 0:14:40.920
<v Speaker 1>which Musk was the star witness, the jury found after

0:14:41.040 --> 0:14:44.600
<v Speaker 1>just two hours of deliberations that he was not liable

0:14:44.640 --> 0:14:48.760
<v Speaker 1>for investors losses. My guest is business law expert Eric Tallely,

0:14:48.880 --> 0:14:52.240
<v Speaker 1>a professor at Columbia Law School. A jury in San

0:14:52.280 --> 0:14:57.560
<v Speaker 1>Francisco took just two hours to clear Musk, despite the

0:14:57.640 --> 0:15:01.640
<v Speaker 1>judge having decided that the funding secured tweet was false,

0:15:02.120 --> 0:15:07.480
<v Speaker 1>despite testimony showing that Musk bankers had barely been consulted,

0:15:07.880 --> 0:15:10.760
<v Speaker 1>and even a week after the treat they were still

0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:13.240
<v Speaker 1>working out how the deal would be structured and who

0:15:13.240 --> 0:15:16.440
<v Speaker 1>would pay for it. So Musk got away from a

0:15:16.520 --> 0:15:20.120
<v Speaker 1>jury verdict against him. Again, maybe you got away with it,

0:15:20.160 --> 0:15:22.760
<v Speaker 1>but I realized that there is definitely a set of

0:15:22.800 --> 0:15:25.320
<v Speaker 1>ground rules to bring one of these simple suits. You

0:15:25.400 --> 0:15:29.080
<v Speaker 1>can't just rest on your laurels with a you know,

0:15:29.160 --> 0:15:32.600
<v Speaker 1>definitely a beneficial for the plaintiffs finding that thes this

0:15:32.720 --> 0:15:36.000
<v Speaker 1>was a false and inaccurate tweet that he said there

0:15:36.040 --> 0:15:38.040
<v Speaker 1>are more ingredients, and that's what the plaintiffs we're going

0:15:38.080 --> 0:15:41.680
<v Speaker 1>to have to contend with here. There are probably two

0:15:41.720 --> 0:15:46.680
<v Speaker 1>major issues that contributed to the outcome, and possibly some more,

0:15:46.720 --> 0:15:48.680
<v Speaker 1>but you know, one of them I think was just

0:15:48.800 --> 0:15:52.920
<v Speaker 1>that there really was a sense that the jury kind

0:15:52.920 --> 0:15:56.640
<v Speaker 1>of had to, you know, figure out the compared to

0:15:56.720 --> 0:15:59.880
<v Speaker 1>what story right, If Musk's tweet the funding was secured

0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:04.800
<v Speaker 1>was incorrect, well, what would it have looked like had

0:16:04.840 --> 0:16:08.280
<v Speaker 1>it been absolutely correct? And there it seems to me

0:16:08.400 --> 0:16:10.840
<v Speaker 1>his his legal team did a good job of saying,

0:16:10.920 --> 0:16:14.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, at the time, everyone thought Elon Musk could

0:16:14.440 --> 0:16:18.000
<v Speaker 1>move mountains. So even if he had tweeded out funding

0:16:18.440 --> 0:16:20.760
<v Speaker 1>kind of close to secured, and I'm still working out

0:16:20.760 --> 0:16:22.520
<v Speaker 1>some of the details, but I'm pretty sure this is

0:16:22.560 --> 0:16:26.160
<v Speaker 1>going to happen. Maybe at the time, that kind of

0:16:26.280 --> 0:16:28.920
<v Speaker 1>is taken by just about everyone as being the rough

0:16:28.920 --> 0:16:33.120
<v Speaker 1>equivalent of funding secured, and that mattered, and matters generally

0:16:33.240 --> 0:16:37.360
<v Speaker 1>for defendants because if the nature of the misstatement, even

0:16:37.400 --> 0:16:40.400
<v Speaker 1>if it was clearly a misstatement, if the nature of

0:16:40.440 --> 0:16:44.200
<v Speaker 1>it isn't big enough to be really, really material or

0:16:44.200 --> 0:16:48.360
<v Speaker 1>to have caused any any losses, the market reaction would

0:16:48.360 --> 0:16:51.600
<v Speaker 1>have been exactly the same even if he had said

0:16:52.120 --> 0:16:56.040
<v Speaker 1>accurately where he was in this process. That is a

0:16:56.320 --> 0:17:01.800
<v Speaker 1>definitely ironclad defense to a securities lawsuit, and that seems

0:17:01.840 --> 0:17:04.800
<v Speaker 1>to be something that the defense did very effectively here.

0:17:04.960 --> 0:17:07.640
<v Speaker 1>The second factor has to do a little bit with

0:17:07.960 --> 0:17:12.000
<v Speaker 1>um how you present facts to a jury. This was

0:17:12.080 --> 0:17:15.359
<v Speaker 1>never going to be the easiest lift for the plaintiff

0:17:15.359 --> 0:17:18.639
<v Speaker 1>class in this case, in large part because it not

0:17:18.720 --> 0:17:23.480
<v Speaker 1>only involved getting to understand how these relatively complex securities

0:17:23.480 --> 0:17:27.760
<v Speaker 1>markets work, but also different plaintiffs that were part of

0:17:27.760 --> 0:17:31.200
<v Speaker 1>the plaintiff class. They had different positions in the stocks,

0:17:31.280 --> 0:17:33.760
<v Speaker 1>some of them, you know, we're buying the underlying stock.

0:17:33.840 --> 0:17:38.080
<v Speaker 1>Some of them had options positions, those themselves can be

0:17:38.200 --> 0:17:41.920
<v Speaker 1>horribly complex to try to work through, and the approach

0:17:41.960 --> 0:17:46.400
<v Speaker 1>in this case was to handle both liability and remedy

0:17:46.600 --> 0:17:49.840
<v Speaker 1>at the same time. So the sheet that the jury

0:17:49.920 --> 0:17:52.719
<v Speaker 1>was given on remedy almost looked like a math like

0:17:52.760 --> 0:17:55.399
<v Speaker 1>a high school math test, and they had to, you know,

0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:57.800
<v Speaker 1>go through month by months to try to figure out

0:17:57.800 --> 0:18:00.560
<v Speaker 1>how much that our day by day that the stock

0:18:00.600 --> 0:18:04.040
<v Speaker 1>of overpriced and so forth. And there's one quick way

0:18:04.040 --> 0:18:06.000
<v Speaker 1>to not have to do any of that math, which

0:18:06.080 --> 0:18:08.560
<v Speaker 1>is to say, I don't think the plaintiffs made their

0:18:08.600 --> 0:18:11.960
<v Speaker 1>case on the basis of liability, and therefore filling out

0:18:12.000 --> 0:18:15.200
<v Speaker 1>the rest of the math quiz is not necessary. That's

0:18:15.240 --> 0:18:17.919
<v Speaker 1>always a challenge in these cases. It's probably you know,

0:18:17.960 --> 0:18:21.159
<v Speaker 1>the big Roulette wheel spin of what's going to happen

0:18:21.160 --> 0:18:23.639
<v Speaker 1>in a damages phase of the trial is something that

0:18:23.680 --> 0:18:26.600
<v Speaker 1>both sides find hard to predict. And so this was

0:18:26.640 --> 0:18:29.200
<v Speaker 1>one of these cases where we just didn't see that

0:18:29.440 --> 0:18:32.879
<v Speaker 1>many cases that go all the way to litigation. This jury,

0:18:33.200 --> 0:18:36.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, felt evidently comfortable enough in their conclusion that

0:18:36.359 --> 0:18:40.160
<v Speaker 1>there just hadn't been enough in there to show liability

0:18:40.600 --> 0:18:43.280
<v Speaker 1>that they were able to conclude, much to their relief,

0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:46.080
<v Speaker 1>no doubt that they didn't have to then start engaging

0:18:46.080 --> 0:18:49.639
<v Speaker 1>in computations related to damages. So the format of the

0:18:49.720 --> 0:18:54.640
<v Speaker 1>jury said the case against Musk was disorganized, he wasn't

0:18:54.680 --> 0:18:57.600
<v Speaker 1>sure what the plaintiffs were driving at, and the lawsuits

0:18:57.640 --> 0:19:00.840
<v Speaker 1>seemed to be relying on just the tweets. He said

0:19:00.920 --> 0:19:04.639
<v Speaker 1>that Musk's lawyers did a better job of showing that

0:19:04.840 --> 0:19:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Musk was presenting what he believed to be true and

0:19:07.680 --> 0:19:11.560
<v Speaker 1>was acting as a genuine bidder for the going private transaction.

0:19:11.800 --> 0:19:15.400
<v Speaker 1>Did Musk just mesmerize the jury? I think there's probably

0:19:15.480 --> 0:19:19.320
<v Speaker 1>always a possibility that Musk has mesmerized someone in a

0:19:19.400 --> 0:19:23.000
<v Speaker 1>jury pool or a general investing public. He still has

0:19:23.080 --> 0:19:27.359
<v Speaker 1>some of that gravity defying power that Bloom is definitely

0:19:27.359 --> 0:19:30.280
<v Speaker 1>at least partially off the rows. Over the last six months,

0:19:30.280 --> 0:19:34.120
<v Speaker 1>and in fact, Musk's team themselves had moved to try

0:19:34.160 --> 0:19:37.000
<v Speaker 1>to relocate the trial to Texas under the theory that

0:19:37.040 --> 0:19:39.720
<v Speaker 1>he couldn't get a fair trial in the Bear That

0:19:39.840 --> 0:19:42.320
<v Speaker 1>never happened. Um, But you know, I think that was

0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:45.520
<v Speaker 1>in part an acknowledgement of the fact that the number

0:19:45.560 --> 0:19:48.040
<v Speaker 1>of folks out there that are willing to, you know,

0:19:48.080 --> 0:19:51.679
<v Speaker 1>effectively take it on faith whenever Elon Musk utters something

0:19:52.359 --> 0:19:55.880
<v Speaker 1>has gone down. That having been said, I do think

0:19:55.880 --> 0:19:58.359
<v Speaker 1>that the defense did a good job of, um, you know,

0:19:58.400 --> 0:20:00.960
<v Speaker 1>trying to make sure the jury trans order themselves back

0:20:01.000 --> 0:20:04.480
<v Speaker 1>to two thousand eighteen, where Elon must still had an

0:20:04.520 --> 0:20:09.520
<v Speaker 1>almost an unalloyed mythical, you know, sort of aura around him,

0:20:09.680 --> 0:20:12.840
<v Speaker 1>and that has more of the ability to move markets

0:20:12.880 --> 0:20:16.600
<v Speaker 1>even if you're not, you know, saying things with great

0:20:16.600 --> 0:20:20.240
<v Speaker 1>certainty like funding secured. And I think that the defense

0:20:20.680 --> 0:20:23.679
<v Speaker 1>did a good job of taking apart the different ingredients

0:20:23.720 --> 0:20:26.359
<v Speaker 1>that have to go in to a civil claim for

0:20:26.400 --> 0:20:30.480
<v Speaker 1>security spraud, finding a couple of those in which it's

0:20:30.520 --> 0:20:33.640
<v Speaker 1>not really clear that he was acting, you know, from

0:20:33.640 --> 0:20:36.720
<v Speaker 1>a desire to mislead people, and in fact, you could

0:20:36.760 --> 0:20:39.840
<v Speaker 1>tell a story as Musk himself did understand, but you know,

0:20:39.880 --> 0:20:41.920
<v Speaker 1>he was just trying to keep people informed of what

0:20:42.000 --> 0:20:44.639
<v Speaker 1>was going on, and may have in artfully chosen a

0:20:44.640 --> 0:20:48.280
<v Speaker 1>few words, but the gist of his of his message,

0:20:48.280 --> 0:20:51.520
<v Speaker 1>at least according to him, was truthful. And so you know,

0:20:51.680 --> 0:20:55.040
<v Speaker 1>it's usually the case in a lot of these business

0:20:55.040 --> 0:20:59.639
<v Speaker 1>litigation matters that there are multiple parts of a cause

0:20:59.680 --> 0:21:02.400
<v Speaker 1>of act action that defendants, if they kind of make

0:21:02.440 --> 0:21:05.200
<v Speaker 1>the world look complex, they have more of a chance

0:21:05.200 --> 0:21:07.520
<v Speaker 1>of winning on one or two of those elements and

0:21:07.560 --> 0:21:10.040
<v Speaker 1>all if all of them are required, that's gonna be

0:21:10.080 --> 0:21:12.760
<v Speaker 1>bad news for the plaintiffs. And so the defense kind

0:21:12.760 --> 0:21:16.080
<v Speaker 1>of has that built in advantage here. That advantage was

0:21:16.200 --> 0:21:20.000
<v Speaker 1>somewhat depleted because of the prior ruling on the falsity

0:21:20.040 --> 0:21:22.680
<v Speaker 1>of the statement, but the defendant, you know, still kind

0:21:22.680 --> 0:21:24.560
<v Speaker 1>of had a position of saying, look, all we have

0:21:24.600 --> 0:21:28.680
<v Speaker 1>to do is win on one of these issues materiality, loss, causation,

0:21:29.000 --> 0:21:31.840
<v Speaker 1>and the entire case of the plaintiffs is sunk. And

0:21:32.119 --> 0:21:34.960
<v Speaker 1>they did a pretty effective job of doing that. The plaintifts,

0:21:34.960 --> 0:21:37.879
<v Speaker 1>in contrast, their effort is really going to be this

0:21:37.960 --> 0:21:40.159
<v Speaker 1>is a really really simple case. This is easy to

0:21:40.200 --> 0:21:44.520
<v Speaker 1>boil down. You know, this is not complicated. This doesn't

0:21:44.520 --> 0:21:48.760
<v Speaker 1>require the jury members to do you know, double reverse,

0:21:48.960 --> 0:21:51.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, flipping twists in the air to figure out

0:21:51.119 --> 0:21:54.200
<v Speaker 1>what was going on. And there, you know, there's gonna

0:21:54.200 --> 0:21:57.480
<v Speaker 1>be a huge premium on putting on a very linear,

0:21:57.640 --> 0:22:01.119
<v Speaker 1>easy to understand case and out of the box. The

0:22:01.359 --> 0:22:04.160
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs in this case the theory was a little bit

0:22:04.200 --> 0:22:07.639
<v Speaker 1>more circuitous to try to get to what the wrong was,

0:22:07.760 --> 0:22:11.159
<v Speaker 1>and and that can matter particularly, you know what, the

0:22:11.240 --> 0:22:13.919
<v Speaker 1>jury of your first couple of witnesses kind of you know,

0:22:14.000 --> 0:22:15.960
<v Speaker 1>send them on a wild goose chase. There's just not

0:22:16.080 --> 0:22:19.520
<v Speaker 1>a second chance to make a first impression. His lawyer,

0:22:19.680 --> 0:22:25.320
<v Speaker 1>Alex Spireau, also want a defamation lawsuit against Musk over

0:22:25.400 --> 0:22:29.359
<v Speaker 1>his tweet calling a cave explorer a pedo guy. Is

0:22:29.359 --> 0:22:32.840
<v Speaker 1>this a case of a lawyer who gets elon Musk

0:22:32.920 --> 0:22:35.600
<v Speaker 1>and knows how to present him to a jury so

0:22:35.680 --> 0:22:39.800
<v Speaker 1>they get him. Yes, maybe, um, but remember Mr Spirow

0:22:39.840 --> 0:22:43.360
<v Speaker 1>also was representing Mr Musk in the Twitter acquisition that

0:22:43.800 --> 0:22:48.399
<v Speaker 1>ended up settling with essentially a complete capitulation from Mr Musk.

0:22:48.840 --> 0:22:51.760
<v Speaker 1>So you know, in both of these cases, they've you know,

0:22:51.800 --> 0:22:55.680
<v Speaker 1>they've sort of fought it out to a successful resolution.

0:22:56.280 --> 0:22:58.160
<v Speaker 1>But you know, I think it seems to most people

0:22:58.200 --> 0:23:00.959
<v Speaker 1>that the fight against having to close the deal on

0:23:01.000 --> 0:23:05.359
<v Speaker 1>Twitter was largely a white flag operation by Team Musk,

0:23:05.440 --> 0:23:08.080
<v Speaker 1>or at least eventually became one. But you know, listen,

0:23:08.200 --> 0:23:11.120
<v Speaker 1>the quality of lawyers that Mr Musk has is very high.

0:23:11.160 --> 0:23:14.200
<v Speaker 1>Spireau as a well, regarded litigator at at Quinn Emmanuel

0:23:14.720 --> 0:23:17.600
<v Speaker 1>and as a result, you know, it shouldn't be surprising

0:23:17.600 --> 0:23:20.159
<v Speaker 1>that he's going to find someone that's good at what

0:23:20.200 --> 0:23:22.600
<v Speaker 1>they do. And Mr spirow is you know, I think

0:23:22.600 --> 0:23:25.080
<v Speaker 1>that it also a sort of testament to when do

0:23:25.119 --> 0:23:28.640
<v Speaker 1>you actually take the case into the courthouse and do

0:23:28.720 --> 0:23:32.199
<v Speaker 1>the live hearing versus decide to save your powder for

0:23:32.240 --> 0:23:35.719
<v Speaker 1>another day? And and you know, in the Twitter acquisition

0:23:35.720 --> 0:23:38.000
<v Speaker 1>they decided to save their powder. They here they decided

0:23:38.040 --> 0:23:42.280
<v Speaker 1>to fight and ended up prevailing at the end. I

0:23:42.359 --> 0:23:46.240
<v Speaker 1>wonder if the difference in the Twitter case and the

0:23:46.280 --> 0:23:50.359
<v Speaker 1>other cases is a judge hearing the case versus a

0:23:50.480 --> 0:23:55.080
<v Speaker 1>jury that can certainly matter, the judge is almost always

0:23:55.119 --> 0:23:58.720
<v Speaker 1>going to be more inclined to stick to their jurisprudential

0:23:58.800 --> 0:24:01.959
<v Speaker 1>knitting on you know, out of the key elements of

0:24:02.000 --> 0:24:05.320
<v Speaker 1>the legal claim here and what is proven versus what

0:24:05.560 --> 0:24:08.359
<v Speaker 1>is kind of you know, gesticulated as a type of

0:24:08.400 --> 0:24:12.000
<v Speaker 1>an innuendo or hint uh, And so that there may

0:24:12.000 --> 0:24:15.320
<v Speaker 1>be something to that, you know, I think this case

0:24:15.560 --> 0:24:17.920
<v Speaker 1>to the extent that this was at least in part

0:24:18.119 --> 0:24:21.440
<v Speaker 1>a process of kind of you know, appealing to a

0:24:21.560 --> 0:24:25.240
<v Speaker 1>lay jury that had hazards in both directions, right. You know,

0:24:25.280 --> 0:24:29.120
<v Speaker 1>even in picking the jury, there were many prospective jurors

0:24:29.160 --> 0:24:32.439
<v Speaker 1>that you know, described Mr Musk as being unlikable and

0:24:32.520 --> 0:24:36.200
<v Speaker 1>detestable and so so I think that you are sort of,

0:24:36.680 --> 0:24:38.560
<v Speaker 1>you know, playing a little bit more of a game

0:24:38.600 --> 0:24:40.399
<v Speaker 1>of chance when you're bringing things in front of a

0:24:40.480 --> 0:24:43.399
<v Speaker 1>lay jury. But by the same token, you do have

0:24:43.520 --> 0:24:48.000
<v Speaker 1>the opportunity to persuade them by your demeanored by your character.

0:24:48.560 --> 0:24:51.640
<v Speaker 1>That probably gets a little bit more play when there's

0:24:51.680 --> 0:24:54.200
<v Speaker 1>live testimony in front of a jury than in front

0:24:54.200 --> 0:24:57.680
<v Speaker 1>of a judge. The plaintiffs lawyer in the closing argument said,

0:24:57.760 --> 0:25:00.879
<v Speaker 1>this case ultimately is about whether rules that apply to

0:25:01.000 --> 0:25:05.720
<v Speaker 1>everyone else should also apply to Elon Musk. So if

0:25:05.760 --> 0:25:09.680
<v Speaker 1>another CEO had done this, would they have gotten off

0:25:09.840 --> 0:25:13.320
<v Speaker 1>or is it? Well, it's Elon Musk. He's tweeting all day.

0:25:13.440 --> 0:25:16.160
<v Speaker 1>He's tweeting a lot of nonsense, So you can't take

0:25:16.200 --> 0:25:20.760
<v Speaker 1>him that seriously. Well, one need not venture very far

0:25:20.840 --> 0:25:23.960
<v Speaker 1>into history to find other examples of CEOs whose tweets

0:25:23.960 --> 0:25:26.359
<v Speaker 1>have gotten them into trouble, and in some cases those

0:25:26.359 --> 0:25:30.800
<v Speaker 1>CEOs have been sued for various manifestations of securities fraud

0:25:31.240 --> 0:25:32.960
<v Speaker 1>and just about all those cases, the case is just

0:25:33.040 --> 0:25:35.639
<v Speaker 1>sort of quietly settled. We don't you sometimes know if

0:25:35.680 --> 0:25:38.520
<v Speaker 1>there was a payment made, Sometimes we don't. And so

0:25:38.960 --> 0:25:41.960
<v Speaker 1>one of the key differentiators here is that Mr Musk

0:25:42.080 --> 0:25:44.480
<v Speaker 1>was willing to just take this into the you know,

0:25:44.560 --> 0:25:47.200
<v Speaker 1>not only up to the courthouse steps, but over them

0:25:47.200 --> 0:25:51.000
<v Speaker 1>and and to to litigate the case the one you know,

0:25:51.040 --> 0:25:53.879
<v Speaker 1>it's kind of left wondering well does this leave what

0:25:53.960 --> 0:25:56.520
<v Speaker 1>does this leave in its wake for those future CEOs

0:25:56.560 --> 0:25:59.760
<v Speaker 1>who may issue improvident tweets? Uh? Is this going to

0:25:59.840 --> 0:26:02.960
<v Speaker 1>make them more likely or less likely to say we're

0:26:02.960 --> 0:26:05.440
<v Speaker 1>going to fight this out in court and not capitulate

0:26:05.600 --> 0:26:07.840
<v Speaker 1>to a settlement. And you know, my sense is that

0:26:07.880 --> 0:26:09.960
<v Speaker 1>most people who watch these sorts of cases, that's going

0:26:10.040 --> 0:26:12.680
<v Speaker 1>to be the more durable aspect of the securities fraud

0:26:12.760 --> 0:26:17.120
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit on you know, the situations, the frequency and the

0:26:17.160 --> 0:26:21.159
<v Speaker 1>contingencies under which parties will settle the case versus just

0:26:21.200 --> 0:26:23.680
<v Speaker 1>deciding they're going to duke it out in court. We've

0:26:23.680 --> 0:26:27.600
<v Speaker 1>talked about this before, how it's unusual for a securities

0:26:27.640 --> 0:26:31.359
<v Speaker 1>fraud case like this to actually get before a jury.

0:26:31.520 --> 0:26:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Did you did others watching this learn anything from this

0:26:35.520 --> 0:26:38.560
<v Speaker 1>case getting to the jury. I think one of the

0:26:38.640 --> 0:26:40.640
<v Speaker 1>key lessons is, if you're going to put a securities

0:26:40.680 --> 0:26:43.560
<v Speaker 1>fraud case in front of a jury, you better be

0:26:43.960 --> 0:26:47.280
<v Speaker 1>very very conscientious of trying to simplify things as much

0:26:47.320 --> 0:26:50.879
<v Speaker 1>as possible. That in some cases may mean that you

0:26:50.920 --> 0:26:55.880
<v Speaker 1>want to split the liability phase from the damages phase. Uh.

0:26:55.920 --> 0:26:59.679
<v Speaker 1>It's not entirely beyond one's imagination to think that this

0:26:59.760 --> 0:27:02.840
<v Speaker 1>jury was thinking, Okay, look, it's kind of a close

0:27:02.920 --> 0:27:07.400
<v Speaker 1>column liability. You know, I guess I'd lean slightly against,

0:27:07.440 --> 0:27:10.280
<v Speaker 1>but I lean even more against if I have to

0:27:10.320 --> 0:27:13.000
<v Speaker 1>do the math quiz to fill out the damages portion

0:27:13.040 --> 0:27:16.119
<v Speaker 1>of the case. So there may be, you know, one

0:27:16.200 --> 0:27:18.200
<v Speaker 1>of the lessons here is that, you know, while there

0:27:18.240 --> 0:27:21.480
<v Speaker 1>can sometimes be some advantages to just having the same

0:27:21.560 --> 0:27:25.800
<v Speaker 1>jury process both questions of liability and questions of quantifying

0:27:25.880 --> 0:27:30.760
<v Speaker 1>damages together, that can be hazardous if essentially the verdict sheet,

0:27:30.880 --> 0:27:34.640
<v Speaker 1>the verdict form uh starts to look like you're being

0:27:34.680 --> 0:27:37.920
<v Speaker 1>asked to retake the ssay T or something like that.

0:27:38.000 --> 0:27:41.600
<v Speaker 1>And so there may be a couple of takeaways here

0:27:42.080 --> 0:27:45.800
<v Speaker 1>for future cases that end up going before juries know

0:27:45.960 --> 0:27:48.080
<v Speaker 1>how to articulate your case in a you know, with

0:27:48.240 --> 0:27:51.919
<v Speaker 1>relatively few moving parts and possibly you know, try to

0:27:51.920 --> 0:27:55.840
<v Speaker 1>concentrate people's attentions on the liability phase without you know,

0:27:55.960 --> 0:27:58.760
<v Speaker 1>sort of clouding folks views on Okay, what were the

0:27:58.800 --> 0:28:03.240
<v Speaker 1>damages associated with it? So a lawyer for the investors said,

0:28:03.440 --> 0:28:06.960
<v Speaker 1>we're disappointed with the result and considering our next steps.

0:28:07.400 --> 0:28:11.080
<v Speaker 1>What are possible next steps and appeal. Any case like

0:28:11.160 --> 0:28:14.439
<v Speaker 1>this can be appealed. The problem when you appeal a

0:28:14.520 --> 0:28:18.760
<v Speaker 1>case that now has some factual findings and then has

0:28:18.760 --> 0:28:24.840
<v Speaker 1>an award is that to overturn a defense side outcome

0:28:24.920 --> 0:28:27.960
<v Speaker 1>below appellate level courts are going to be very, very

0:28:28.000 --> 0:28:31.840
<v Speaker 1>reluctant to revisit the jury's interpretation of the facts. Here

0:28:32.080 --> 0:28:35.040
<v Speaker 1>it's given an enormous amount of weight, and only if

0:28:35.040 --> 0:28:38.479
<v Speaker 1>there's just no reasonable way a juror could interpret facts

0:28:38.520 --> 0:28:41.040
<v Speaker 1>in the way that they did, would and a palate

0:28:41.080 --> 0:28:43.960
<v Speaker 1>court saying okay, we're gonna overturn that and maybe throw

0:28:44.040 --> 0:28:49.400
<v Speaker 1>this back to being relitigated. So appeal is always a possibility.

0:28:49.440 --> 0:28:52.680
<v Speaker 1>I tend to think in this case that the best

0:28:52.720 --> 0:28:54.480
<v Speaker 1>that you're going to be able to do on appeal

0:28:54.760 --> 0:28:58.240
<v Speaker 1>is retry the case. And you know, and unless you've

0:28:58.280 --> 0:29:00.160
<v Speaker 1>got a good theory about how you can make is

0:29:00.280 --> 0:29:04.360
<v Speaker 1>less complicated, uh more approachable to the jury, it may

0:29:04.400 --> 0:29:07.440
<v Speaker 1>not be worthwhile doing. After all, there is you know,

0:29:07.560 --> 0:29:11.280
<v Speaker 1>this was a fairly volatile period of time in the

0:29:11.360 --> 0:29:14.760
<v Speaker 1>life cycle of Tesla stock. You know, during this period

0:29:14.800 --> 0:29:17.280
<v Speaker 1>of time, it's definitely the case that Tesla stock was

0:29:17.320 --> 0:29:21.479
<v Speaker 1>fluctuating wildly, probably not as much as it has fluctuated

0:29:21.520 --> 0:29:24.680
<v Speaker 1>in the time since, but you know, there definitely was

0:29:24.760 --> 0:29:28.160
<v Speaker 1>a lot of movement in the stock, largely due to

0:29:28.480 --> 0:29:32.320
<v Speaker 1>speculation around this potential going private transaction. You know, at

0:29:32.320 --> 0:29:35.760
<v Speaker 1>some point you're throwing good money after bad continuing to

0:29:35.800 --> 0:29:39.040
<v Speaker 1>try to press this particular legal claim. Um. You know,

0:29:39.080 --> 0:29:42.920
<v Speaker 1>other options may simply be you know, restructuring and rethinking

0:29:42.920 --> 0:29:46.680
<v Speaker 1>the way that one invest in some of these situations,

0:29:46.720 --> 0:29:51.040
<v Speaker 1>and uh, you know, possibly placing greater pressure on companies

0:29:51.040 --> 0:29:54.960
<v Speaker 1>to uh to either audit or in some ways sense

0:29:55.040 --> 0:29:57.240
<v Speaker 1>or for certain types of tweets that might be sent

0:29:57.280 --> 0:30:00.560
<v Speaker 1>out that are informationally sensitive to appeal. Some of the

0:30:00.640 --> 0:30:03.959
<v Speaker 1>judges rulings, I think most of the judge's rulings were

0:30:04.120 --> 0:30:08.640
<v Speaker 1>favorable to the plaintiffs, weren't they certainly leading up to

0:30:08.720 --> 0:30:12.160
<v Speaker 1>the to the actual trial. The plaintiffs were looking like

0:30:12.200 --> 0:30:14.520
<v Speaker 1>they were playing a fairly strong hands, and some of

0:30:14.520 --> 0:30:17.000
<v Speaker 1>the elements that they would have to demonstrate had already

0:30:17.000 --> 0:30:21.440
<v Speaker 1>been adjudicated in their favor. That having been said, there

0:30:21.520 --> 0:30:23.840
<v Speaker 1>was a trial for a reason because not all of

0:30:23.880 --> 0:30:27.000
<v Speaker 1>the elements of the securities proud claim have been adjudicated.

0:30:27.200 --> 0:30:30.200
<v Speaker 1>And to win on liability, you gotta you gotta run

0:30:30.280 --> 0:30:32.200
<v Speaker 1>the table as a plaintiff. You can't just went on

0:30:32.200 --> 0:30:35.360
<v Speaker 1>one or two of these elements, their conjunctive elements, which

0:30:35.360 --> 0:30:37.880
<v Speaker 1>you've got to win all of So, you know, the

0:30:37.880 --> 0:30:40.320
<v Speaker 1>the odds had been evened up a little bit by

0:30:40.360 --> 0:30:42.960
<v Speaker 1>by some of those prior rulings by the judge. But

0:30:43.040 --> 0:30:45.280
<v Speaker 1>then ultimately it was clear to everyone that the judge

0:30:45.320 --> 0:30:47.960
<v Speaker 1>was going to hand over the rest of these determinations

0:30:48.000 --> 0:30:50.560
<v Speaker 1>to a jury, and there was no guarantee that this

0:30:50.640 --> 0:30:52.080
<v Speaker 1>jury was going to act in a way that was

0:30:52.120 --> 0:30:54.840
<v Speaker 1>consistent with how the judge had acted previously. Thanks so

0:30:54.880 --> 0:30:57.400
<v Speaker 1>much for being on the show. Eric. That's Eric Tallely,

0:30:57.520 --> 0:31:00.560
<v Speaker 1>a business law professor at Columbia Law School, And that's

0:31:00.600 --> 0:31:03.240
<v Speaker 1>it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

0:31:03.240 --> 0:31:05.320
<v Speaker 1>you can always get the latest legal news on our

0:31:05.360 --> 0:31:09.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:31:09.680 --> 0:31:14.720
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,

0:31:15.120 --> 0:31:17.280
<v Speaker 1>and remember to tune in to The Bloomberg Law Show

0:31:17.400 --> 0:31:20.200
<v Speaker 1>every week night at ten p m. Wall Street Time.

0:31:20.720 --> 0:31:23.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg