1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,600
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Attorney General

6
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:25,640
Speaker 1: of Missouri has spent his fourteen months in office pursuing

7
00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:30,320
Speaker 1: attention grabbing cases. Josh Harley's biggest target yet is Alphabet,

8
00:00:30,400 --> 00:00:35,320
Speaker 1: Google's parent. On February, Harley formerly launched a campaign for

9
00:00:35,360 --> 00:00:37,959
Speaker 1: the US Senate. He's running as the favorite to win

10
00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:41,600
Speaker 1: the Republican nomination, what's arguably the most important race in

11
00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:46,240
Speaker 1: the mid term elections. Joining me is Josh Brustein. He's

12
00:00:46,240 --> 00:00:50,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News technology reporter. Josh is Harley on a crusade

13
00:00:50,600 --> 00:00:54,400
Speaker 1: against the tech industry. Well, we'll see. He certainly seems

14
00:00:54,440 --> 00:00:58,080
Speaker 1: to think that it's useful for him to position himself

15
00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:01,800
Speaker 1: as a critic of Google um, which is interesting because

16
00:01:01,840 --> 00:01:05,399
Speaker 1: you have a Republican official who is making a case

17
00:01:05,480 --> 00:01:09,920
Speaker 1: to basically bring government action against a very successful, very

18
00:01:09,959 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: innovative private company. So what is Harley's investigation at this point?

19
00:01:14,920 --> 00:01:19,320
Speaker 1: Concentrating on as possible legal violations by Google. Yeah. So

20
00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:22,080
Speaker 1: there's two things that he's going to be looking at,

21
00:01:22,160 --> 00:01:24,959
Speaker 1: or that he's already looking at. The first is privacy. UM.

22
00:01:25,240 --> 00:01:29,240
Speaker 1: He wants to know whether Google is misusing uh personal

23
00:01:29,280 --> 00:01:33,000
Speaker 1: information and whether it's communicating to its users in a

24
00:01:33,040 --> 00:01:36,240
Speaker 1: way that's not completely honest. UM. The other thing is

25
00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:40,600
Speaker 1: an antitrust violation. That would be whether Google is abusing

26
00:01:40,720 --> 00:01:44,200
Speaker 1: its dominant power as a search engine to gain an

27
00:01:44,240 --> 00:01:48,800
Speaker 1: advantage over competitors. UM. The most obvious example of this

28
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:52,000
Speaker 1: is UM. It's if you type Google. If you type

29
00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:54,720
Speaker 1: like a restaurant into Google, you'll you won't just send

30
00:01:54,760 --> 00:01:57,840
Speaker 1: you to website, You'll see some information right away. And

31
00:01:58,040 --> 00:02:01,240
Speaker 1: UM critics say that Google is basically cutting out companies

32
00:02:01,280 --> 00:02:04,920
Speaker 1: like Yelp by taking their information and just presenting it

33
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:07,840
Speaker 1: to you right away without ever sending you to their site. So.

34
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:12,000
Speaker 1: Google has had several encounters with antitrust claims, including the

35
00:02:12,000 --> 00:02:14,880
Speaker 1: e use record two point seven billion dollar fun which

36
00:02:14,880 --> 00:02:20,240
Speaker 1: is on appeal. Tell us about the FTCs investigation of Google. Yeah,

37
00:02:20,280 --> 00:02:26,600
Speaker 1: so the FTC looked into similar allegations starting in it

38
00:02:26,720 --> 00:02:31,000
Speaker 1: decided not to bring a lawsuit in twenty UM and

39
00:02:31,919 --> 00:02:35,560
Speaker 1: there was a number of UM settlements announced with Google,

40
00:02:35,639 --> 00:02:39,680
Speaker 1: where the Commission basically said, we've looked at these issues.

41
00:02:40,120 --> 00:02:42,679
Speaker 1: Google has agreed to make some changes in its behavior,

42
00:02:43,200 --> 00:02:46,280
Speaker 1: and other issues we think are just not UM are

43
00:02:46,280 --> 00:02:49,320
Speaker 1: just not relevant, and so we're satisfied. Now, that doesn't

44
00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:51,880
Speaker 1: mean that all of Google's critics were satisfied, and so

45
00:02:51,960 --> 00:02:54,200
Speaker 1: that's kind of the reflection of that is what we're

46
00:02:54,200 --> 00:02:57,800
Speaker 1: seeing in the Holly investigation. How much of an uphill

47
00:02:57,880 --> 00:03:01,440
Speaker 1: battle would a lawsuit this kind a lawsuit against Google

48
00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:05,360
Speaker 1: b in US courts? Yes, so it would be an

49
00:03:05,400 --> 00:03:10,040
Speaker 1: uphill battle. Uh. First of all, just practically Google has

50
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:14,119
Speaker 1: much more resources in the Missouri Attorney General's office does,

51
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:18,040
Speaker 1: and so just in terms of, you know, the actual battle,

52
00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:20,639
Speaker 1: that would be an issue. And Holly hopes to get

53
00:03:20,680 --> 00:03:24,240
Speaker 1: other states involved, which I think is really a big

54
00:03:24,240 --> 00:03:27,320
Speaker 1: factor into whether this proceeds. UM. The other thing is

55
00:03:27,320 --> 00:03:31,440
Speaker 1: just that American antitrust law is much more permissive than

56
00:03:31,480 --> 00:03:35,280
Speaker 1: European antitrust law, and so the fact that a European

57
00:03:35,320 --> 00:03:37,480
Speaker 1: court found something there doesn't mean that a U. S

58
00:03:37,480 --> 00:03:40,680
Speaker 1: court will find something here. Civil lawsuits, we know, take

59
00:03:40,720 --> 00:03:44,640
Speaker 1: a long time years perhaps, but a lawsuit doesn't have

60
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:47,480
Speaker 1: to be a winner to damage a company. And you

61
00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:51,880
Speaker 1: wrote about Microsoft as an example. Yeah, it's interesting. Um,

62
00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:56,119
Speaker 1: Microsoft was the target of the most prominent antitrust case

63
00:03:56,160 --> 00:04:00,240
Speaker 1: brought against an American technology company. It started in these

64
00:04:00,640 --> 00:04:03,160
Speaker 1: In the end, it didn't really result in a major

65
00:04:03,280 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: finding against Microsoft. It made some adjustments. Um. But people,

66
00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:10,880
Speaker 1: both people who supported that case and those who criticize it,

67
00:04:11,440 --> 00:04:14,880
Speaker 1: say that a major outcome was that Microsoft was a

68
00:04:14,880 --> 00:04:18,800
Speaker 1: little bit careful going forward because of those lawsuits and

69
00:04:18,880 --> 00:04:22,120
Speaker 1: ended up getting out maneuvered by companies like Google that

70
00:04:22,200 --> 00:04:25,000
Speaker 1: was kind of an upstart at the time. So Holly

71
00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:27,920
Speaker 1: says he'll make a decision on whether to bring charges

72
00:04:28,080 --> 00:04:31,760
Speaker 1: this summer, when his Senate campaign will be in full swing.

73
00:04:32,320 --> 00:04:36,760
Speaker 1: How much of this is politically motivated? Well, whenever you

74
00:04:36,800 --> 00:04:40,040
Speaker 1: see an attorney general bring a high profile case, um,

75
00:04:40,080 --> 00:04:43,720
Speaker 1: it is there's a political calculation in there, especially when

76
00:04:43,760 --> 00:04:46,839
Speaker 1: that attorney general is also running for office. I do

77
00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:50,720
Speaker 1: think that one thing that we might see here is Holly,

78
00:04:50,839 --> 00:04:53,040
Speaker 1: whether or not this case goes forward, is kind of

79
00:04:53,080 --> 00:04:57,640
Speaker 1: testing out whether positioning himself against Google is a good

80
00:04:58,120 --> 00:04:59,960
Speaker 1: is a good thing to do, even as a senator

81
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:01,840
Speaker 1: and that the end result of this might not be

82
00:05:01,920 --> 00:05:04,880
Speaker 1: a lawsuit, but it might be something that he tries

83
00:05:04,920 --> 00:05:07,080
Speaker 1: to do as a legislator. And I think that's something

84
00:05:07,120 --> 00:05:10,719
Speaker 1: to watch. He's been in office for fourteen months, He's

85
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:16,360
Speaker 1: already running for a Senate seat. That's a pretty quick turnaround. Yeah,

86
00:05:16,360 --> 00:05:21,159
Speaker 1: And ironically, part of Holly's campaign for Attorney General was

87
00:05:21,360 --> 00:05:23,520
Speaker 1: him saying I'm not just going to use this as

88
00:05:23,560 --> 00:05:26,800
Speaker 1: a stepping stone to get to the next office. Um.

89
00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:29,400
Speaker 1: He had this now embarrassing commercial where he sort of

90
00:05:29,400 --> 00:05:31,720
Speaker 1: walks through a sea of ladders and says, I'm not

91
00:05:31,760 --> 00:05:34,360
Speaker 1: just a ladder climbing politician. So I'm sure you will

92
00:05:34,400 --> 00:05:36,920
Speaker 1: see that in some of the opposition as against him.

93
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:40,400
Speaker 1: He is certainly open to criticism that he's um really

94
00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:45,240
Speaker 1: rising quite quickly. And tell us a little bit about

95
00:05:45,320 --> 00:05:48,960
Speaker 1: his race, how how pivotal it is. Yeah. So, um,

96
00:05:49,120 --> 00:05:52,360
Speaker 1: Holly is running against Claire mccaskell. She's a Democrat. Um,

97
00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:55,799
Speaker 1: she's been in term, She's been in office for two terms.

98
00:05:55,839 --> 00:05:58,600
Speaker 1: She uh is running in a state that went very

99
00:05:58,640 --> 00:06:02,839
Speaker 1: heavily for Trump and is seen as an unusually vulnerable

100
00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:06,360
Speaker 1: Democratic incumbent. Now the Democrats are trying to win the Senate.

101
00:06:06,680 --> 00:06:09,240
Speaker 1: To do so, they have to capture some Republican seats,

102
00:06:09,240 --> 00:06:11,560
Speaker 1: but they also have to defend their own seats, and

103
00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:14,400
Speaker 1: so if mccaskell loses, that will put the party in

104
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:19,040
Speaker 1: a pretty tough spot. Are there other attorney generals state

105
00:06:19,040 --> 00:06:24,320
Speaker 1: attorney generals looking into possible charges against Google? Or is

106
00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:29,039
Speaker 1: he the only one? So this is the first anti

107
00:06:29,200 --> 00:06:32,200
Speaker 1: trust suit or it's not a suit yet, it's an

108
00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:35,479
Speaker 1: investigation that's been brought by a state attorney general since

109
00:06:35,520 --> 00:06:40,080
Speaker 1: the FTC decided against pursuing its own case. Now, Holly's

110
00:06:40,120 --> 00:06:43,160
Speaker 1: office says that there are other states that are very

111
00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:47,479
Speaker 1: involved and very excited about potentially joining on. We haven't

112
00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:50,040
Speaker 1: heard from any of those states. We will see if

113
00:06:50,080 --> 00:06:51,920
Speaker 1: we do. But at the moment, he's kind of out

114
00:06:51,920 --> 00:06:55,720
Speaker 1: there on his own and uh, Google says it's cooperating

115
00:06:55,880 --> 00:06:59,000
Speaker 1: with his investigation. Just in about thirty seconds. Do you

116
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:03,120
Speaker 1: think a Google has much to worry about from him? Well,

117
00:07:03,160 --> 00:07:05,800
Speaker 1: I think that this case is probably not at the

118
00:07:05,839 --> 00:07:08,720
Speaker 1: top of the list for Google um to be worried about.

119
00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:10,840
Speaker 1: I do think that what the company is worried about

120
00:07:10,920 --> 00:07:14,840
Speaker 1: is it indicates a broader atmosphere of skepticism and hostility

121
00:07:15,160 --> 00:07:18,320
Speaker 1: towards Silicon Valley, and that can really build in unpredictable ways.

122
00:07:18,320 --> 00:07:20,320
Speaker 1: And that's what Google has to watch out for. Always

123
00:07:20,320 --> 00:07:22,520
Speaker 1: a pleasure to have you on. Thanks so much. That's

124
00:07:22,640 --> 00:07:30,200
Speaker 1: Josh brustin Bloomberg News technology reporter. President Trump declared the

125
00:07:30,200 --> 00:07:34,160
Speaker 1: opioid crisis and national public health emergency in October. There

126
00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:37,120
Speaker 1: are now more than four hundred lawsuits against the manufacturers

127
00:07:37,120 --> 00:07:41,160
Speaker 1: and distributors of opioid painkillers. Joining me is James Ferraro,

128
00:07:41,280 --> 00:07:44,200
Speaker 1: founder of the Ferraro Law Firm. He's representing plaintiffs in

129
00:07:44,240 --> 00:07:47,400
Speaker 1: about twenty four cases in several states. He's also the

130
00:07:47,400 --> 00:07:50,480
Speaker 1: author of the book Blindside, which recounts his decade long

131
00:07:50,560 --> 00:07:54,840
Speaker 1: courtroom battle against chemical giant DuPont Jim. There are more

132
00:07:54,840 --> 00:07:58,640
Speaker 1: than four hundred federal lawsuits consolidated in what's called a

133
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:02,880
Speaker 1: multi district litigation nor MDL. Before Ohio federal judge Dan

134
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:08,760
Speaker 1: Polster describe the complexity with so many theories and plaintiffs

135
00:08:08,800 --> 00:08:14,400
Speaker 1: with different interests, Well, you know, it is kind of

136
00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:17,240
Speaker 1: it looks like a quagmire on its face. In the

137
00:08:17,240 --> 00:08:21,560
Speaker 1: biggest problem with the litigation is that there are there's

138
00:08:21,600 --> 00:08:26,560
Speaker 1: so many uh uh manufacturers, distributors, then you know a

139
00:08:26,640 --> 00:08:30,440
Speaker 1: manufacturer level. You also have the generics then you know

140
00:08:30,800 --> 00:08:33,080
Speaker 1: so so you have a lot of targets. And then um,

141
00:08:33,160 --> 00:08:36,200
Speaker 1: you know then about half a dozen doctors that were

142
00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:38,680
Speaker 1: involved in promoting it. So you got a lot of targets.

143
00:08:38,840 --> 00:08:41,000
Speaker 1: And then on the other side you have claimants coming

144
00:08:41,000 --> 00:08:43,840
Speaker 1: out from all over the place, and there's several types.

145
00:08:43,920 --> 00:08:47,400
Speaker 1: There's these third party claimants sort of like unions for

146
00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:49,600
Speaker 1: their health funds where they spent a lot of money

147
00:08:49,600 --> 00:08:52,560
Speaker 1: on you know, addiction and treatment that type of thing.

148
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:56,440
Speaker 1: And um, then you've got the governments, state governments that

149
00:08:56,480 --> 00:08:59,920
Speaker 1: are trying to recover for loss on Medicaid, medicare, the

150
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:02,760
Speaker 1: and will just assist in their hospital, police and so

151
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:04,960
Speaker 1: on and so forth. So there's a lot of elements

152
00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:07,240
Speaker 1: to it. And but the one thing that I think

153
00:09:07,280 --> 00:09:09,600
Speaker 1: there is one one part of the case that is

154
00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:12,480
Speaker 1: the kind of denominator for everyone, and that is where

155
00:09:12,520 --> 00:09:15,600
Speaker 1: does liability begin and where does liability end? And that

156
00:09:15,640 --> 00:09:18,280
Speaker 1: really is going to come down to the threshold on

157
00:09:18,559 --> 00:09:23,800
Speaker 1: where there's responsibility. For instance, these opiates, Um, they're perfectly

158
00:09:24,080 --> 00:09:26,720
Speaker 1: fine for end of life care. That's what they like

159
00:09:26,760 --> 00:09:29,559
Speaker 1: morphine and things of that nature. That's perfectly fine, and

160
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:31,720
Speaker 1: it's legal, and that's what that it is supposed to

161
00:09:31,760 --> 00:09:35,480
Speaker 1: prescribe for that. The other side of spectrum, whether's you know,

162
00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:39,640
Speaker 1: pretty clear liabilities where they got overprescribed. You know, when

163
00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:41,679
Speaker 1: I was a kid and I got my wisdom teeth pulled,

164
00:09:42,040 --> 00:09:45,520
Speaker 1: I was prescribed extra strength pile and all. Now you

165
00:09:45,559 --> 00:09:49,000
Speaker 1: can get four thirty dair renewals for opiates when you

166
00:09:49,040 --> 00:09:51,880
Speaker 1: get your wisdom teeth pull which is obscene. Now that's

167
00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:56,480
Speaker 1: clear liability. So the thresholds can be somewhere between the

168
00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:59,240
Speaker 1: clear liability there and the end of life care and

169
00:09:59,280 --> 00:10:01,480
Speaker 1: one of the thresh hold dare to apply to everybody.

170
00:10:01,720 --> 00:10:04,360
Speaker 1: Let's move to some of the things happening in the

171
00:10:04,600 --> 00:10:07,400
Speaker 1: multi district litigation. The judge made news, at least in

172
00:10:07,480 --> 00:10:09,800
Speaker 1: legal circles when he told the lawyers he wanted to

173
00:10:09,840 --> 00:10:13,600
Speaker 1: put litigation efforts like discovery on hold so the lawyers

174
00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:17,840
Speaker 1: could engage in settlement discussions. Briefly, how did that unorthodox

175
00:10:17,920 --> 00:10:20,960
Speaker 1: move go? Well, you know what I mean, I think

176
00:10:21,120 --> 00:10:25,520
Speaker 1: the judge poles to what he's doing. What I think

177
00:10:25,640 --> 00:10:29,040
Speaker 1: is correct is to try to resolve the behavior which

178
00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:32,439
Speaker 1: in other words, get get the conduct change, because there's

179
00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:35,160
Speaker 1: a hundred fifty people a day dying in the United States,

180
00:10:35,760 --> 00:10:37,320
Speaker 1: and that's where he wants to go first, and I

181
00:10:37,320 --> 00:10:39,439
Speaker 1: think he's correct. After that, he wants to get into

182
00:10:39,440 --> 00:10:42,760
Speaker 1: the monetary components, you know, who gets, who is damaged

183
00:10:42,880 --> 00:10:46,040
Speaker 1: how much, and that to him is less important, maybe

184
00:10:46,040 --> 00:10:48,160
Speaker 1: not to the litigants but to Judge Posting. But I

185
00:10:48,240 --> 00:10:50,280
Speaker 1: think he is right on that you really need to

186
00:10:50,320 --> 00:10:54,240
Speaker 1: get the behavior changed first, cut off the bleeding and

187
00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:56,840
Speaker 1: um which is everyone's benefit, and then move into the

188
00:10:56,880 --> 00:11:00,440
Speaker 1: monetary components. The problem is, there's so many moving imparts,

189
00:11:00,440 --> 00:11:02,640
Speaker 1: and there's so many different like I talked about previously,

190
00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 1: so many targets, and there's you know, it's just not

191
00:11:05,559 --> 00:11:08,520
Speaker 1: like tobacco. We have like, you know, four major tobacco

192
00:11:08,640 --> 00:11:12,040
Speaker 1: companies and you know, it's their product and it's just

193
00:11:12,440 --> 00:11:15,000
Speaker 1: you know, basically one on one, you know, But that's

194
00:11:15,040 --> 00:11:18,480
Speaker 1: not what we have here. Well, the companies want to

195
00:11:18,559 --> 00:11:22,800
Speaker 1: settlement that would resolve state lawsuits as well, and the

196
00:11:22,920 --> 00:11:26,240
Speaker 1: judge wants a deal addressing the company's business practices on

197
00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:28,760
Speaker 1: the roots of the crisis. Does that seem like an

198
00:11:28,800 --> 00:11:33,079
Speaker 1: overwhelming ask? It's a big ask. I mean it's I mean,

199
00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:36,640
Speaker 1: it's it's you know, it's it's not easy because there's

200
00:11:36,880 --> 00:11:39,120
Speaker 1: so many players that could come out of the woodwork.

201
00:11:39,160 --> 00:11:41,520
Speaker 1: I mean, where does it end. I mean, you know,

202
00:11:41,600 --> 00:11:43,240
Speaker 1: some of these some of the damages are going to

203
00:11:43,320 --> 00:11:47,000
Speaker 1: be easy to calculate. You know, for instance, you's got

204
00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:49,760
Speaker 1: like Medicare losses. You know, like how much was spent

205
00:11:49,840 --> 00:11:54,200
Speaker 1: on Medicare for opiates that were improperly prescribed and treatment

206
00:11:54,240 --> 00:11:56,880
Speaker 1: so on at the government level. You've got a lot

207
00:11:56,920 --> 00:12:00,480
Speaker 1: more than that. So now the judge all that that

208
00:12:00,600 --> 00:12:03,880
Speaker 1: wasn't moving forward as as quickly as he likes. So

209
00:12:03,920 --> 00:12:08,240
Speaker 1: he's cleared the way for the lawyers to start collecting evidence, etcetera.

210
00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:11,560
Speaker 1: He's giving both sides until marks sixteenth to come up

211
00:12:11,559 --> 00:12:15,800
Speaker 1: with a litigation plan. About a minute. Is that doable?

212
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:21,200
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's doable in a litigation plan, A

213
00:12:21,320 --> 00:12:24,720
Speaker 1: general litigation plan is definitely doable in that amount of time.

214
00:12:24,880 --> 00:12:26,559
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no question. But he's got to get

215
00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:28,760
Speaker 1: the steering committee together and assign that out to all

216
00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:31,560
Speaker 1: the different firms, Like there's gonna who's gonna do discovery

217
00:12:31,559 --> 00:12:33,920
Speaker 1: on the corporate rapture? You know, for farm mine, who's

218
00:12:33,920 --> 00:12:36,439
Speaker 1: going to do it on you know, you know, the

219
00:12:36,559 --> 00:12:38,920
Speaker 1: cassion and so on and so forth. But the the

220
00:12:38,960 --> 00:12:41,000
Speaker 1: actual general plan I think you can get in place.

221
00:12:41,240 --> 00:12:43,400
Speaker 1: The execution of it, It's gonna take a lot longer

222
00:12:43,760 --> 00:12:47,520
Speaker 1: and about thirty seconds here has there have you seen

223
00:12:48,160 --> 00:12:52,360
Speaker 1: uh an md L that's been this complex before. This

224
00:12:52,640 --> 00:12:56,559
Speaker 1: will probably be the most complex MDL in history because

225
00:12:56,559 --> 00:12:59,760
Speaker 1: of all the moving targets that it's It certainly sounds

226
00:12:59,800 --> 00:13:03,160
Speaker 1: like a big task facing that Ohio judge and the

227
00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:05,600
Speaker 1: plaintiffs and defendants in this case. Thanks so much for

228
00:13:05,720 --> 00:13:08,960
Speaker 1: joining us. Jim, that's James Ferraro. He is a founder

229
00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:12,400
Speaker 1: of the Ferrara Law Firm, and his book is called Blindsided.

230
00:13:12,520 --> 00:13:16,880
Speaker 1: It's about his decade long courtroom battle against chemical giant

231
00:13:17,040 --> 00:13:20,319
Speaker 1: du Pont. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

232
00:13:20,679 --> 00:13:23,880
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast,

233
00:13:24,000 --> 00:13:28,720
Speaker 1: SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

234
00:13:29,200 --> 00:13:30,480
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg