35 Burst results for "Columbia Law School"

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:08 min | 5 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Is suing Elon Musk over his abandoning the $44 billion takeover bid, accusing the billionaire of having buyer's remorse after his fortune declined. The merger agreement includes a specific performance provision that allows Twitter to force mosque to consummate the deal, and that's just what Twitter is asking the Delaware courts to do. My guest is Eric talley, a professor at Columbia law school. Eric give us your take on Twitter's complaint here. The lawsuit's not terribly surprising. The lawyers for Twitter have come out on the box hot. And I think everyone expected them to. The relief that they're seeking, which is also not surprising, is a specific performance order, essentially compelling Musk to go through with the deal. And they would have asked for that regardless of whether it makes sense for Musk to end up owning Twitter or not because that gives them the maximal bargaining leverage if they were to get that order and he really doesn't want to own Twitter. He can try to bargain his way out of it in exchange for a significant settlement payment. So the relief that they've thought is exactly what everyone predicted they would seek. What they have attended to doing in the complaint quite effectively is to make sure that they are beginning to state their case about how Twitter has all along been dually compliant with its obligations under the merger agreement. In contrast to mister Musk's contention that they have not been forthcoming in delivering of data. I think a lot of people doubted Musk's assertions on this and the complaint sort of lays out a little bit more that many of Musk's demands for data were actually met by Twitter and he essentially kept escalating them and making them more frequent, not even really reviewing what they had already given him until the point where basically said, now we're not going to give you any more. We've got to protect the information of our clients and customers. And so forth. So I think that that was important because it was going to be important for Twitter even though they are the plaintiff in this lawsuit to be able to fend off arguments from mister mosque that Twitter was in breach first. I'd say the last part about the complaint that I think was clearly calculated. The complaint is being withering or sarcastic. But it did go out of its way to place excerpts of various tweets and responses, including poop emojis in the complaint itself. Largely, I think, just a signal how exasperating it has been to deal with the Musk team on this, particularly as it became more and more apparent that mister Musk was really just looking for an escape hatch to try to dive out of and try to find some pretextual reason not to go forward with the transaction. It says Musk apparently believes that he, unlike every other party subject to Delaware contract law, is free to change his mind, trash the company, disrupt its operations, destroy shareholder value and walk away. Yes, so that is a fairly strong statement in the complaint and then it's followed up very close to the end of the complaint with a one sentence paragraph that says something to the effect that mister Musk must believe that his entire process with Twitter must be just some elaborate joke. And I think that that is an important set of inclusions into this complaint because when it comes right down to it, the Delaware courts are the top business court in the country and for good reason, they have a reputational stake in saying, look, we take contracts and contractual obligations seriously. And if your cavalier or unserious about getting into a significant deal and then expect to essentially waltz away into the sunset with no repercussions, you're in for a fairly unpleasant surprise that Delaware at least would like to think of itself as the sentry that allows people to enter into contracts and feel comfortable that the other side is going to live up to their obligations because a Delaware court is standing there ready to enforce them. And so I think that some of the more animated parts of this complaint really are designed to tap into what everyone sort of believes that Delaware prides itself is being the business law court that you can rely on that is going to be willing to make those difficult decisions to say, yeah, we're going to either force someone to go through with this contract or have them see significant repercussions if they don't. Specific performance is a big ask, do Delaware courts often order specific performance of a contract like this? Yeah, as a general matter in contract law, the usual rule in the United States is money damages for breaching a contract. But in situations where it's very, very difficult to come up with those dollar values on how you would even compensate someone, then courts have always reserved their so called equitable discretion to say, okay, we're just going to actually issue a court order forcing you to make good on your promise. Now, a lot of contracting parties and this is a true of the Twitter Musk deal as well. Put in a paragraph that says, by the way, both parties hereby acknowledge that it would be really hard to come up with money damages and therefore, if there is a breach by either side, the other side will be entitled to seek specific performance if they want it. Okay, hold that thought. Coming up next we'll discuss the likelihood of specific performance being ordered. This is Bloomberg. When the global supply chain is

Twitter mister Musk Musk Delaware Eric talley Elon Musk mister mosque Columbia law school Eric Delaware court United States Bloomberg
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:38 min | 6 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"I'm Brian shook This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to Columbia law school professor Eric talley about Elon Musk's latest attempt to walk away from his Twitter deal It shows a little bit more lawyering but still looks like buyers remorse Musk is threatening to walk away from the deal if the social network doesn't do more to prove that its users are real people In a securities filing Musk said he thinks Twitter is a material breach of the merger agreement by not meeting his demands for more information about spam and fake accounts Of course Musk has been complaining about Twitter's bots publicly since before he made an offer to buy the company The problem for Musk is not only that the proposed takeover includes a $1 billion breakup fee but that he can't just walk away by paying the fee The merger agreement includes a specific performance provision that allows Twitter to force Musk to consummate the deal in court if necessary So let's suppose that Twitter hasn't given all the information because of privacy concerns Is that enough to be a material breach of Twitter's obligations under this agreement No generally not So there are two reasons why it's not First of all explicitly in the very same section of the contract that mister Musk's lawyer has been citing Twitter retains the right not to hand over information that would be confidential that might cause it to breed someone's privacy rights Or that might undermine its future competitive position And so it's conceivable to me that that's the exact claim they're making He's not satisfied with it but it is in fact baked into their contract rights already Moreover if these are the types of infirmities that can be cured over time it also wouldn't get him off the hook from the deal They would essentially possibly delay the closing of the deal until they could resolve what would and would not be disclosed But it's not going to be a likely excuse to walk away from the deal So just explain we've talked about this before Why it's more than just a $1 billion termination fee Twitter can force him to go through the contract Yeah there's a general amount of they can Now there are some situations in which he would be able to walk away from the contract and pay a $1 billion termination fee But those are relatively small compared to the situations under which Twitter could just force him to go through with his side of the deal Probably the biggest potential out he has and the way that kind of toggle on to this idea that he could just walk away with $1 billion Is if his financing fails for the transaction And significant component of the purchase price is going to be through money that's borrowed from third party lenders who have themselves made commitment letters to Twitter So one of the possible reasons why Musk is trying to be so focal and vocal about this particular issue is possibly he is trying to encourage the very folks that he arranged to lend him money to start getting cold feet about lending him money because if they get cold feet and say sorry the deal's off We're not going to lend anymore That's the one or one of a few scenarios where he would plausibly be able to walk away and be exposed only up to this $1 billion termination fee How long does Twitter have to wait before it says okay we're going to court to enforce this contract Well in principle they could file suit anytime they wanted I think one of the things that you really want to try to balance from Twitter's perspective is to assemble track record of acting in good faith moving things along in the direction of trying to close this transaction without yourself getting hot headed or overly demanding So the executives at Twitter and their legal team has no doubt sort of taking this lesson to heart that they're in a relatively strong position based on the contract to the extent that Musk is trying to goad them into a public spat or a spat that causes them to start acting petty and withholding things That could just put them in breed to this contract So I think their approach is probably the right one is to say navigate this boat as steadily as we can realizing that we're going to get hit by a tidal wave every once in a while that's got Elon Musk's fingerprints all over it But keep sailing toward the north star And if at some point he does something definitive as a move to walk away from the deal that's when we will go ahead and file suit having put together a fairly lengthy track record of all the things that we've done to try to consummate this deal and all the things that mister Musk has done and possibly people who are aligned with him to try to kneecap the deal And both of these parties are under an obligation to try to expend their efforts at least not to undermine the deal if not to cause the deal to close Does it fit in anywhere that Musk waved a chance to look at Twitter's finances beyond what was publicly available Does that count against him in any way In principle it hugely counts against him But this is endemically a problem when a buyer of a large company.

Twitter Musk Brian shook Bloomberg radio Eric talley mister Musk Elon Musk Columbia law school
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:31 min | 6 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Speculation that Elon Musk is getting cold feet about acquiring Twitter comes from Musk himself From his tweet last Friday that the deal was on hold to his very tentative answer to the question at the all in summit in Miami on Monday Is this Twitter deal going to get closed do you think The chances here Well I mean it really depends on a lot of factors here I'm still waiting for some sort of logical explanation for the number of fake or spam accounts on Twitter And Twitter is refusing to tell us And then a Muscat attempt at some legalese You know it's a material misstatement If they in fact have been claiming less than 5% of vagus fan accounts but in fact it is four or 5 times that number or perhaps ten times that number This is a big deal Joining me to help parse through the latest from Musk is Eric talley a professor at Columbia law school Eric Musk even made a comparison to buying a house with termites Does it sound like he's trying to give some legal reasons for getting out of the deal It sounds like it is It sounds like he has been undergoing some coaching possibly therapy by his lawyer The grounds that he is now fighting He's starting to invoke some formal legal terms that are part of the contract that he signed with Twitter related to what's known as a material adverse effect Now.

Twitter Elon Musk Musk Eric talley Eric Musk Miami Columbia law school
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:59 min | 7 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"The speculation that Elon Musk is getting cold feet about acquiring Twitter comes from Musk himself From his tweet last Friday that the deal was on hold to his very tentative answer to the question at the all in summit in Miami on Monday Is this Twitter deal going to get closed do you think The chances here Well I mean it really depends on a lot of factors here I'm still waiting for some sort of logical explanation for the number of fake or spam accounts on Twitter And Twitter is refusing to tell us And then a Muscat attempt at some legalese You know it's a material misstatement If they enact vociferously claiming less than 5% of vagus spam accounts but in fact it is four or 5 times that number or perhaps ten times that number This is a big deal Joining me to help parse through the latest from Musk is Eric talley a professor at Columbia law school Eric Musk even made a comparison to buying a house with termites Does it sound like he's trying to give some legal reasons for getting out of the deal It sounds like it is It sounds like he has been undergoing some coaching possibly therapy by his lawyer The grounds that he is now fighting He's starting to invoke some formal legal terms that are part of the contract that he signed with Twitter related to what's known as a material adverse effect Now what does basically is it's sort of an act of God type of provision that says if something crazy happened there was something that is really arrive from what we thought we were getting into Then the buyer or the seller can walk away However the usual have to be sorts of provisions is that they are hard to invoke And if you're going to try to use one of them you actually bear the burden of demonstrating that there was this incredible surprise that one would never have expected that now has materially undercut the value of this company And there I think that's going to be an incredibly difficult pill for Musk to surmount The main thing that he is citing is that a very securities disclosures Twitter misstated the number of their bots but first of all if you actually read the disclosure they say in a very lawyered way that we've tried the best we can to determine how many of our accounts are bots and how many are not and this is actually a really hard thing to figure out We may not be getting it right but what we've come up with with our sampling is that fewer than 5% but just realize that we might be wrong and it may be that the best way to measure this is something other than the way that we've measured it This does not strike me as the type of claim that is analogous to saying I hereby proclaim that there are no termites in this house It's almost like proclaiming there might be termites We haven't seen any We looked we had a particularly looking for them We have seen any or we didn't see that many but our strategy might be wrong So you've got both a standard for material adverse effect that is very very high Something that's going to have to be borne by him if he's going to try to make this argument in court And a glaring alternative theory as to why he doesn't want to go through with this deal which is the fact that the stock prices have fallen And the tech sector since he signed up the deal at $54 in 20 cents And he now has buyers remorse I am therefore looking anywhere to try to find an escape hatch to jump out of But this one does not strike me as one that is going to be all that friendly for him There was some talk about renegotiating the price when the house has termites Although according to Bloomberg sources the deal is still on track as is There's always a possibility of recutting the price of a deal but it's always done in the shadow of what are the likely rights duties and obligations that the parties have If they don't based on this particular assertion by mosque it seems like a notably weak case for him to be able to walk away from the deal Very low probability and therefore if everyone knows that he's bargaining not holding an ace in his hand but holding a two of club he's not going to be able to bargain for very much if the Twitter board is doing their job Is any of this really surprising given that his approach to this deal has been unconventional from the start The one thing that is maybe a little surprising about his tactics is that he has ended up seizing the pond something that looks like it is going to be a very difficult to engineer theory the material adverse effect argument very much is stacked against him I would have thought and in fact I think it may well be the case that this strategy may shift if he continues to want to either get out of the deal or to go back to the bargaining table Another aspect of this deal is that he could potentially walk away or maybe only walk away and have to pay billions of dollars if the financing of the deal falls through And there it seems like there might be more room for things to happen particularly if the folks who have agreed to lend $13 billion into this deal get cold feet either get cold feet by themselves or get cold feet after having been encouraged to get cold feet from Elon Musk himself So I'm going to guess that if this melodrama continues to play out it may end up shifting away from the bot issue which in my view is a bit of a sideshow And this financing contingency may take more center stage Thanks Eric That's professor Eric talley of Columbia law school Coming up next TikTok is sued over the death of a ten year old girl This is Bloomberg Businesses Susan I'm sorry I'm late Traffic is terrible It sure is but on top of that gas prices have been skyrocketing I can't believe how expensive gas has gotten.

Twitter Eric talley Eric Musk Musk Elon Musk Columbia law school Miami Bloomberg Bloomberg Businesses Eric Susan
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:47 min | 7 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Speculation that Elon Musk is getting cold feet about acquiring Twitter comes from Musk himself From his tweet last Friday that the deal was on hold to his very tentative answer to the question at the all in summit in Miami on Monday Is this Twitter deal going to get closed do you think The chances here Well I mean it really depends on a lot of factors here I'm still waiting for some sort of logical explanation for the number of fake or spam accounts on Twitter And Twitter is refusing to tell us And then a Muscat attempt at some legalese You know it's a material misstatement If they in fact have been claiming less than 5% of vagus fan accounts but in fact it is four or 5 times that number or perhaps ten times that number This is a big deal Joining me to help parse through the latest from Musk is Eric talley a professor at Columbia law school Eric Musk even made a comparison to buying a house with termites Does it sound like he's trying to give some legal reasons for getting out of the deal It sounds like it is It sounds like he has been undergoing some coaching possibly therapy by his lawyer The grounds that he is now fighting He's starting to invoke some formal legal terms that are part of the contract that he signed with Twitter related to what's known as a material adverse effect Now what does basically is it's sort of an act of God type of provision that says if something crazy happens or something that is really awry from what we thought we were getting into then the buyer or the seller can walk away However the usual has to be sorts of provisions is that they are hard to invoke And if you're going to try to use one of them you actually bear the burden of demonstrating that there was this incredible surprise that one would never have expected that now has materially undercut the value of this company And there I think that's going to be an incredibly difficult pill for Musk to surmount The main thing that he is citing is that a very securities disclosures Twitter misstated the number of their box but first of all if you actually read the disclosure they say in a very lawyered way but you know we've tried the best we can to determine how many of our accounts are bots and how many are not And this is actually a really hard thing to figure out We may not be getting it right but what we've come up with with our sampling is that fewer than 5% but just realize that we might be wrong and it may be that the best way to measure this is something other than the way that we've measured it This does not strike me as the type of claim that is analogous to saying I hereby proclaim that there are no termites in this house It's almost like proclaiming there might be termites We haven't seen any We looked we had a particularly looking for them We didn't see any or we didn't see that many but our strategy might be wrong So you've got both a standard for material adverse effect that is very very high Something that's going to have to be borne by him if he's going to try to make this argument in court And a glaring alternative theory as to why he doesn't want to go through with this deal which is the fact that the stock prices have fallen in the tech sector since he signed up the deal at $54 in 20 cents And he now has buyers remorse and therefore is looking anywhere to try to find an escape hatch to jump out of But this one does not strike me as one that is going to be all that friendly for him There was some talk about renegotiating the price when the house has termites Although according to Bloomberg sources the deal is still on track as is There's always a possibility of recutting the price of a deal But it's always done in the shadow of what are the likely rights duties and obligations that the parties have If they don't based on this particular assertion by mosque it seems like a notably weak case for him to be able to walk away from the deal Very low probability and therefore if everyone knows that he's bargaining not holding an ace in his hand but holding a two of club he's not going to be able to bargain for very much if the Twitter board is doing their job Is any of this really surprising given that his approach to this deal has been unconventional from the start The one thing that is maybe a little surprising about his tactics is that he has ended up seizing upon something that looks like it is going to be a very difficult to engineer theory the material adverse effect argument very much is stacked against him I would have thought and in fact I think it may well be the case that this strategy may shift if he continues to want to either get out of the deal or to go back to the bargaining table Another aspect of the deal is that he could potentially walk away or maybe only walk away and have to pay a $1 billion if the financing of the deal falls through And there it seems like there might be more room for things to happen particularly if the folks who have agreed to lend $13 billion into this deal get cold feet either get cold feet by themselves or get cold feet after having been encouraged to get cold feet from Elon Musk himself So I'm going to guess that if this melodrama continues to play out it may end up shifting away from the bot issue which in my view is a bit of a sideshow and this financing contingency may take more center stage Thanks Eric That's professor Eric tally of Columbia law school Coming up next TikTok is sued over the death of.

Twitter Eric talley Eric Musk Musk Elon Musk Columbia law school Miami Bloomberg Eric tally Eric
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:54 min | 7 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"That Elon Musk is getting cold feet about acquiring Twitter comes from Musk himself From his tweet last Friday that the deal was on hold to his very tentative answer to the question at the all in summit in Miami on Monday Is this Twitter deal going to get closed do you think The chances here Well I mean it really depends on a lot of factors here I'm still waiting for some sort of logical explanation for the number of fake or spam accounts on Twitter And Twitter is refusing to tell us And then a Muscat attempt at some legalese You know it's a material misstatement If they in fact have been claiming less than 5% of vagus fan accounts but in fact it is four or 5 times that number or perhaps ten times that number This is a big deal Joining me to help parse through the latest from Musk is Eric talley a professor at Columbia law school Eric Musk even made a comparison to buying a house with termites Does it sound like he's trying to give some legal reasons for getting out of the deal It sounds like it is It sounds like he has been undergoing some coaching possibly therapy by his lawyer The grounds that he is now fighting He's starting to invoke some formal legal terms that are part of the contract that he signed with Twitter related to what's known as a material adverse effect Now what does basically is it's sort of an act of God type of provision that says if something crazy happens or something that is really awry from what we thought we were getting into then the buyer or the seller can walk away However the usual have to be sorts of provisions is that they are hard to invoke And if you're going to try to use one of them you actually bear the burden of demonstrating that there was this incredible surprise that one would never have expected that now has materially undercut the value of this company And there I think that's going to be an incredibly difficult pill for Musk to surmount The main thing that he is citing is that a very securities disclosures Twitter misstated the number of their bots but first of all if you actually read the disclosure they say in a very lawyered way that we've tried the best we can to determine how many of our accounts are bots and how many are not And this is actually a really hard thing to figure out We may not be getting it right but what we've come up with with our sampling is that fewer than 5% but just realize that we might be wrong and it may be that the best way to measure this is something other than the way that we've measured it This does not strike me as the type of claim that is analogous to saying I hereby proclaim that there are no termites out It's almost like proclaiming there might be termites We haven't seen any We looked we had a particularly looking for them We didn't see any or we didn't see that many but our strategy might be wrong So you've got both a standard for material adverse effect that is very very high Something that's going to have to be borne by him if he's going to try to make this argument in court And a glaring alternative theory as to why he doesn't want to go through with this deal which is the fact that the stock prices have fallen in the tech sector since he signed up the deal at $54 in 20 cents And he now has buyers remorse I am therefore is looking anywhere to try to find an escape hatch to jump out of But this one does not strike me as one that is going to be all that friendly for him There was some talk about renegotiating the price when the house has termites Although according to Bloomberg sources the deal is still on track as is There's always a possibility of recutting the price of a deal But it's always done in the shadow of what are the likely rights duties and obligations that the parties have If they don't based on this particular assertion by mosque it seems like a notably weak case for him to be able to walk away from the deal Very low probability and therefore if everyone knows that he's bargaining not holding an ace in his hand but holding a two of club he's not going to be able to bargain for very much I have the Twitter board of doing their job Is any of this really surprising given that his approach to this deal has been unconventional from the start The one thing that is maybe a little surprising about his tactics is that he has ended up seizing upon something that looks like it is going to be a very difficult to engineer theory the material adverse effect argument very much is stacked against him I would have thought and in fact I think it may well be the case that this strategy may shift if he continues to want to either get out of the deal or to go back to the bargaining table Another aspect of this deal is that he could potentially walk away or maybe only walk away and have to pay a $1 billion if the financing of the deal falls through And there it seems like there might be more room for things to happen particularly if the folks who have agreed to lend $13 billion into this deal get cold feet either get cold feet by themselves or get cold feet after having been encouraged to get cold feet from Elon Musk himself So I'm going to guess that if this melodrama continues to play out it may end up shifting away from the bot issue which in my view is a bit of a sideshow and this financing contingency may take more center stage Thanks Eric That's professor Eric tally of Columbia law school Coming up next TikTok is sued over the death of a ten year old girl This is Bloomberg At Bloomberg's using marijuana before the age of 25 could actually cause.

Twitter Eric talley Eric Musk Musk Elon Musk Columbia law school Miami Bloomberg Eric tally Eric
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:01 min | 7 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio All the speculation that Elon Musk is getting cold feet about acquiring Twitter comes from Musk himself From his tweet last Friday that the deal was on hold to his very tentative answer to the question at the all in summit in Miami on Monday Is this Twitter deal going to get closed do you think The chances here Well I mean it really depends on a lot of factors here I'm still waiting for some sort of logical explanation for the number of fake or spam accounts on Twitter And Twitter is refusing to tell us And then a Muscat attempt at some legalese You know it's a material misstatement If they in fact have been claiming less than 5% of vagrant spam accounts but in fact it is four or 5 times that number or perhaps ten times that number This is a big deal Joining me to help parse through the latest from Musk is Eric talley a professor at Columbia law school Eric Musk even made a comparison to buying a house with termites Does it sound like he's trying to give some legal reasons for getting out of the deal It sounds like it is It sounds like he has been undergoing some coaching possibly therapy by his lawyer The grounds that he is now fighting He's starting to invoke some formal legal terms that are part of the contract that he signed with Twitter related to what's known as a material adverse effect Now what does basically is it's sort of an act of God type of provision that says if something crazy happened there was something that is really awry from what we thought we were getting into Then the buyer or the seller can walk away However the usual have to be sorts of provisions is that they are hard to invoke And if you're going to try to use one of them you actually bear the burden of demonstrating that there was this incredible surprise that one would never have expected that now has materially undercut the value of this company And there I think that's going to be an incredibly difficult pill for Musk to surmount The main thing that he is citing is that in various securities disclosures Twitter misstated the number of their bots but first of all if you actually read the disclosure they say in a very lawyered way that we've tried the best we can to determine how many of our accounts are bots and how many are not and this is actually a really hard thing to figure out We may not be getting it right but what we've come up with with our sampling is that fewer than 5% but just realize that we might be wrong and it may be that the best way to measure this is something other than the way that we've measured it This does not strike me as the type of claim that is analogous to saying I hereby proclaim that there are no termites out It's almost like proclaiming there might be termites We haven't seen any We looked we had a particularly looking for them We didn't see any or we didn't see that many but our strategy might be wrong So you've got both a standard for material adverse effect that is very very hot Something that's going to have to be borne by him if he's going to try to make this argument in court And a glaring alternative theory as to why he doesn't want to go through with this deal which is the fact that the stock prices have fallen in the tech sector since he signed up the deal at $54 in 20 cents And he now has buyers remorse I am therefore is looking anywhere to try to find an escape hatch to jump out But this one does not strike me as one that is going to be all that friendly for him There was some talk about renegotiating the price when the house has termites Although according to Bloomberg's sources the deal is still on track as is There's always a possibility of recutting the price of a deal But it's always done in the shadow of what are the likely rights duties and obligations that the parties have If they don't based on this particular assertion by mosque it seems like a notably weak case for him to be able to walk away from the deal Very low probability and therefore if everyone knows that he's bargaining not holding an ace in his hand but holding a two of club he's not going to be able to bargain for very much if the Twitter board is doing their job Is any of this really surprising given that his approach to this deal has been unconventional from the start The one thing that is maybe a little surprising about his tactics is that he has ended up seizing upon something that looks like it is going to be a very difficult to engineer theory the material adverse effect argument very much is stacked against him I would have thought and in fact I think it may well be the case that this strategy may shift if he continues to want to either get out of the deal or to go back to the bargaining table Another aspect of this deal is that he could potentially walk away or maybe only walk away and have to pay a $1 billion if the financing of the deal falls through And there it seems like there might be more room for things to happen particularly if the folks who have agreed to lend $13 billion into this deal get cold feet either get cold feet by themselves or get cold feet after having been encouraged to get cold feet from Elon Musk himself So I'm going to guess that if this melodrama continues to play out it may end up shifting away from the bot issue which in my view is a bit of a sideshow and this financing contingency may take more center stage Thanks Eric That's professor Eric tally of Columbia law school Coming up next TikTok is sued over the death of a ten year old girl This is Bloomberg.

Twitter Bloomberg June Grasso Bloomberg radio Eric talley Eric Musk Musk Elon Musk Columbia law school Miami Elon Eric tally Eric
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

04:46 min | 7 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Money Remember in that Ted interview when Elon Musk said that buying Twitter was about promoting free speech not about making money but he didn't say it was about losing money either Musk's proposed takeover of Twitter has been frenzied and unconventional from the start launching an unsolicited takeover offer without detailed financing plans and waving the chance to look at Twitter's finances Since then we've seen a sharp decline in the equity markets along with Tesla stock and there's the growing gap between Twitter's stock price and the Musk offer price So on Friday when Musk tweeted that the deal was on hold because he wanted more details about the number of fake accounts on the platform the speculation started that the world's richest man had gotten cold feet about acquiring Twitter Joining me is Eric talley a professor at Columbia law school Former president Trump said there's no way that Elon Musk will buy Twitter at such a ridiculous price Do you agree with that It's seeming more and more unlikely that Musk is going to buy Twitter Well last I checked former president Trump had not been to law school And one of the things that is considerable complication here is that Elon Musk has already entered into a contract in which he substantially obliges himself to make steps towards buying Twitter at a cash price that he's already stated So the economics of this deal I think are probably causing Elon Musk to think twice about whether he really has buyers remorse here I mean I suspect he does if for no other reason because he ended up paying a price that was probably higher than it would have been had he just waited for a few more weeks That having been said the history books are filled with people who are buying companies who then get some buyers remorse and try to get out of that But the contracts that they've entered into make it either hard or impossible to get out of it So one big factor here is trying to determine to what extent the deal that Musk ended up entering into with Twitter is going to end up tying his own hands later on or forcing a fairly difficult renegotiation with the Twitter board sitting on a fair amount of bargaining power How messy would it be for Musk to back out of the deal If you just sort of stare at the document itself this is a document that looks for what they say in the industry relatively seller friendly The company that's selling itself there aren't that many ways that Musk can walk away Now there are some aspects to it that make it look like he could right There's a termination fee that he would have to pay of a $1 billion If he were to walk away but that's really only one of the provisions in the deal and another one which is far more important is a provision that's called a specific performance provision And that's just legalese for the either side if the other side wants to try to back out They can essentially force the part of your get a court order forcing the party to go forward And that's a provision that's in this deal It doesn't provide that many outs for Elon Musk The one that it might help provide is if for some reason he's unable to secure financing for the deal then that might allow that specific performance provision to fall away So you know I think a lot of people are sort of thinking that the disclosure he made this weekend about whether Twitter has more than 5% bot type or automaton type accounts was essentially trying to set the stage for possibly engineering a failing of the financing of the deal Now that one itself is kind of complicated for at least two or three reasons The first is there isn't a lot of financing left on this deal It's still a fair amount of financing but most of this deal always has been Elon Musk buying a bunch of stock of Twitter and he's been conscripting a bunch of co investors to come on with him and actually reducing the amount of debt that he's pledging his Tesla shares to help secure So he's been actually reducing the debt that's part of this deal And that's going to make it even harder to engineer a situation where the lenders get cold feet and walk away The second thing is that the provision that he's evidently complaining about is something that has been in Twitter's disclosures for a long time It's a heavily lawyered provision that says by our account we don't have more than 5% of these bots who are account holders but realize that there are just a bunch of different ways to count this up And other ways of counting it up may differ So it's a heavily lawyered.

Twitter Elon Musk Musk Eric talley president Trump Columbia law school Tesla Ted Trump
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:13 min | 8 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"From the COVID-19 pandemic agreeing to buy American campus communities in a cash transaction valued at about $12.8 billion Blackstone up now by four and a half percent ACC American campus communities surging 12.6% Recapping tenure right now 2.90% the S&P up 53 up 1.2% I'm Charlie palette that David Weston is a Bloomberg business flash Thank you so much Charlie pellett Well it's back to the 80s as the world is watching Elon Musk make an unwelcome offer for Twitter and the board has responded by adopting a so called poison pill To take us through the rules that apply welcome now the authority on corporate governance he's professor John coffee and he is the director of the center on corporate governance at the Columbia law school So professor thank you so much for being with us So give us a sense of where we are right now Elon Musk has made an offer to the board the board doesn't seem inclined to take it What comes next Well he could have announced a hostile tender offer He can announce it But he can't consummate it until they can get rid of that poison pill and the only practical way to get rid of that poison pill is to run a proxy part which takes a substantial amount of time and replace the incumbent directors with his nominees Then his nominees could vote to redeem or replace the push and pill so it was no longer an obstacle None of that's going to happen in a few days And I'm not sure I'll even want to announce the pill I wanted to announce a tender offer yet until he's got all his tucks in a row In terms of financing he does face a problem This is not a problem he's used to not having enough liquidity but he's indicated that he's going to make a $43 billion bid at the price that he's already announced And he probably expects to put only ten or 15 billion of his own money in according to what he's revealed in some newspaper articles That means he's got to get banks other creditors or other co investors to put a lot of money in with them And many of them are a little nervous about investing with Leon with Elon because he does have a certain reputation for instability and very volatile changes in mood So he's got to find allies and he's got to find some way to get rid of that poison pill either by raising his price So the board will accept it which I don't think is likely or by running a high school proxy fight to eliminate those directors And that's something that's going to take many weeks So we're right now at a point where everything's about to be announced but the battle is only going to be joined This is not going to be resolved very quickly And then finally there could be other bidders We've heard about Apollo global and toma bravo Also thinking about making a bid or participating with some other bid and thus the playing field is cutting pretty crowded Yeah the account I saw at least suggested Apollo was going to help finance somebody else either tomo brama or perhaps Elon Musk The ten to $15 billion number is the one I saw at least in the New York Post reported that went through some of the difficulties here He has reportedly $270 billion worth of Tesla stock Couldn't he post that as collateral as a bank Well he has he can post collateral to banks but the banks had to have something they can levy on He is restricted under the by laws of Tesla from pledging for a loan more than something like 25% of the stocky holds And he's come pretty close to that limit probably all ready So he's got to find private investors People like Apollo global have done this before Who will invest in both equity and debt with them but they've got to be a little bit more confident in his game plan because Elon is scaring away potential co investors when he announces he wants to fundamentally change Twitter by no longer seeking advertising and instead seeking to make it more of a subscription business That's a little difficult because right now about 90% of the revenues of Twitter come from advertising So he's got to have a clear game plan before he's going to get co investors to join him I'm so glad you raised that because my memory is a little dim now back to the 80s when it was done but it wasn't more typical for the person going after it to lay out in more detail what their plan was because I understand he wants it but he hasn't really said what he wants to do with it You're right When he makes a tender offer he's going to describe his sources of financing And right now we don't know what his sources of financing are He's not going to be able to say and make it look at all credible that I'm going to find the money someplace but right now I can tell you that I have already bought a 10% and I expect to buy up to a majority control He also has a lot of large shareholders who don't seem to invite his bid Vanguard owns even more than he does and they not comfortable with him Saudi Arabia owns something like 7 or 8% And other shareholders like bar Cuban and the original founders own enough stock that it adds up to his block also So he is not a dominating shareholder even though he's the largest And all of that means is he's got to get a lot of liquidity which he doesn't yet have And he's got to get some way to get around that poison pill which can't be done quickly At the same time the board obviously must have some fiduciary obligations here They have somebody who is a wealthy person coming in and say they want to pay a premium How do they justify something like the poison Bill other than just we'd like to keep our jobs Well you could say we expect the company is undervalued Remember that Twitter was valued at a price of about 50% higher than where it is today And even though this is a high premium bid that Elon is making it's still at a price well below the valuation of Twitter last year And most boards have been able to say with a straight face We think the company is worth twice as much and frankly no court has overruled them in modern times Does the board have an obligation to do.

Elon Musk Apollo global Charlie palette David Weston Charlie pellett John coffee center on corporate governance Elon Columbia law school toma bravo Twitter tomo brama Blackstone
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

07:43 min | 10 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to Columbia law school professor Joshua mitts the lead author of a study that challenges the Securities and Exchange Commission's view that a so called short squeeze played little part in pushing GameStop into the stratosphere in January of 2021 So what are some of the possible regulatory solutions You think could work Sure So we think as a starting point the SEC needs to focus on the role of social media and trading I and a group of other about a dozen law professors filed a rule making petition two years ago in which we asked the SEC to lay down the rules of the road for hosting on social media and trading at the same time We asked the commission to clarify for example that if you say that you have a position in a stock and then immediately change that position then you have to update the market and keep the market informed as to the truth of what you said originally So if you say you're shortly long a stock and that's not the case you shouldn't leave that information out there for investors to rely on You should be transparent If you voluntarily spoken to keep the market informed when what you said is no longer true We think basic rules of honesty and transparency like these would go a long way towards making the market fairer and more of a place that ordinary investors can invest their capital in rather than be subject to potentially fraudulent on manipulative trading schemes through social media Do you think that it would be difficult for the SEC to start policing social media Well we think what's critical is to lay down clear rules of the road But don't restrict what people can say about companies because that's a basic matter of freedom of speech But rather say when you voluntarily choose to inject information into the market when you tell people that you're short or long a stock you have to be transparent and forthcoming that has to be true If it's not true then you're misleading the market So the goal is not to tell people what they can believe or how they can invest The goal is to simply say that we want to investors to invest with confidence knowing that when representations are made about trading positions and about what companies are worth that those aren't in fact fraudulent schemes we discussed This is not a controversial point The SEC has said this in general but they haven't come forward yet in put forward clear rules of the road for social media We also think that the role of short selling is incredibly important and it's essential to uphold and protect the integrity of the market so that short sellers can perform the important function that they do in our markets Where else did the SEC falter here Well I think what this episode shows is the need for a rigorous approach to data analysis And I think what surprised so many market participants not only our committee but also observers it's just how quickly the agency dismissed two fundamental explanations for what happened in January 2021 a short squeeze and a gamma squeeze We weren't the ones who brought this to the market's attention People were saying that even before January 2021 market participants were telegraphing We're saying that they were going to be engaging in a short squeeze and again this week And to reject this out pan on the basis of partial data what I think it shows is that the SEC needs to fundamentally engage as an organization and culturally with the role of data in driving policy making And this is we think something that starts with organizational culture It starts with a commitment and it starts with engagement and that's why what we've done is we've made ourselves available to the commission and to staff to help them in that effort We don't just want to be critical We want to be constructive and we've said to the extent that we can help in this process that we can help you work through this complex mountain of information let us come alongside and we think that could be a model for partnership which could really lead to better policy in the end Since it seems that the meme stock frenzy is over Do you think the SEC is less likely to spend time on this Well while it's true that what happened in early 2021 has largely petered out The fact that is that financial technology is continuing to evolve The FinTech sector apps like Robinhood maybe in their first generation or second generation right now but we're continuing to see more and more innovation in the space So I think the future is greater and greater engagement individual market participants today people just don't want to leave their money in 401k index fund and come back in 30 years They want to be engaged They want to be participants in the markets So I think actually what we're seeing is an evolution which makes this rule making even more urgent because the next crisis is just around the corner And one of the challenges we've seen for regulators is too much of a backward focus So the goal is not to fix what happens in 2021 goal is to understand what happens in 2021 so that we can be ready for the next technological innovation and the starting point for that is good data in a rigorous engagement so that we can put forward the best policy that protects investors I want to switch for a moment to the class action lawsuit against Robin Hood It was filed by customers who claim that Robinhood didn't properly disclose how it sacrificed execution quality in favor of the highest payments from market makers Robin Hood is making a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Do you have a take on how strong the case is for dismissal Well I think it's always hard to apply on a case in a situation where you're reading what's in a complaint and judges are often in the difficult position of having to decide whether they really want to allow a case to go forward At the motion to dismiss stage the court isn't deciding whether a party is guilty or not or liable or not rather the court has to decide if there is enough here So I think as we take a step back and ask fundamentally What is the quality of these disclosures Well there's a real challenge that FinTech firms face around offering their products in a way that attracts customers while at the same time being transparent about who's paying ultimately for the service And I think that there are in fact profound questions to whether Robinhood disclosures were adequate But ultimately as to whether those questions rise to the level of a cognizable legal claim I think it's a question that a judge is going to have to answer And I think any other legal expert would not rush to judgment In part because questions of disclosure can often be very very close But I think ultimately what the court is going to have to look at is what would a reasonable customer have thought if you're being told on the one hand that you're able to trade for free how much information will you be given about execution quality and was that information material to the customer's decision to use the product These are challenging questions and I don't envy the court I think that sometimes judges have to make very close calls This strikes me as a case where it's not apparent at first glance which way the court is going to go But it's going to ultimately turn on what message was sent to customers of the product and did they understand ultimately how they in effect were paying for something that was marketed to them as free Thanks for being on the show.

SEC Joshua mitts Bloomberg Columbia law school GameStop Securities and Exchange Commis Robinhood Robin Hood
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:47 min | 11 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Children Ivanka and Don Junior are trying to qua subpoenas for their testimony from the New York attorney general whose investigating whether Trump's real estate business manipulated the value of key assets for tax and insurance purposes but will they fair any better than their brother Eric who was forced to testify the investigation in October of 2020 after a losing battle in court Joining me is former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers who teaches at Columbia law school Jennifer this investigation has been going on since 2019 What do you make of the timing of these subpoenas It is kind of interesting that it happened as the select committee is also ratcheting up its investigation and getting closer to the inner circle as well You do tend to hold the more important witnesses to the end because you want to gather as much evidence as you can gather your ammunition if you will before you speak with the people who are kind of central to the inquiry your target So maybe that suggests that he and her team are getting close to the end of the inquiry that they've now noticed the Trump kids So it might suggest that she's getting towards the end But hard to tell you know these investigative types are usually pretty close with devout housing or proceeding inside What are the trumps arguing to the court to try to get the subpoenas quashed They have tried to say that it's improper that the depositions are being noticed at a time when there's also a parallel criminal inquiry going on But you know this is not that a common in financial cases for example you will see a financial criminal investigation going on with the Department of Justice at the same time that the SEC may be investigating for civil case and those things running in parallel sometimes So it does happen There's no inherent problem with that Trumps are going to have to decide how they perceive knowing that any testimony they give in a civil matter can be used against them criminally or against the company criminally as it comes to that I wouldn't say it's commonplace oftentimes the criminal will take precedence and the SEC or whatever the civil entity is will hold but sometimes it does happen that they have been at the same time So I don't think an argument that there's something inherently improper about that is going to carry the day Are they alleging know that there's bad faith that the New York AG is trying to take their depositions so that that evidence can be used against them in the criminal case that she's also a part of Well they've been alleging that faith all along I mean that's basically Trump number one answer to anything against him whether it's a criminal inquiry as civil case it's always somehow politically motivated or in bad faith you know you just can't get around that argument They have a little bit of ammunition here I mean his James when she was campaigning made some ill advised comments about how she wanted to go after Trump and the fact that her team is working with the Manhattan DA on the criminal case gives these claims a little bit more gravitas than they might otherwise have but this is straight out of the Trump playbook It's a claim that this is all kind of bad faith political motivation These are two increase that have been going on for quite some time The Manhattan DA has been leading the criminal inquiry and then some of the 15 so apparently joined forces with them But you know again I can't see how that kind of argument is going to sway a judge for example to say that they can not be deposed in this otherwise legitimate civil matter just because there is an ongoing criminal inquiry And that's the risk that people take when they do things that open them up to civil investigations and criminal investigations Is it wise for them to testify in the civil case Knowing that a criminal case is being contemplated Well it's not wise for them to give up any information in either case if they can help it And that's why they're fighting so hard against it but ultimately they may be forced to do that And again they'll have to be quite careful because anything they say in the civil case will be able to be used against them But you know that's why you shouldn't lie That's why you have to be careful in terms of what you say but that's just the way the ball bounces if you've done things that are illegal and you've done things that's exactly you to lawsuits and then you're asked to come and tell us youth about them You know it's just all where they may on that one If they take the 5th and the civil case will that create an inference against them It does create an inference in the civil case Of course it can't be used in the criminal case That's everyone's system amendment right not too incriminate themselves But yes that's part of the challenge for them That's part of the pickle is that they have to decide whether they want to refuse to testify because of potential criminal liability And by the way that could have been the case regardless of whether there's a criminal inquiry or not If they know the same did things as part of their work at Trump work that subjected them to potential criminal liability somewhere somehow down the road there doesn't have to be attending inquiry for them to claim their Fifth Amendment privilege but they have to think about that whether they want to do that or not because then you can get that influence in the civil case Thanks Jennifer That's Jennifer Rogers of Columbia law school Coming up next how many years could Elizabeth Holmes spend in prison and where I'm Jim grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

Don Junior Jennifer Rogers Ivanka Columbia law school New York AG SEC Trump Jennifer Eric Department of Justice New York Manhattan James Elizabeth Holmes Jim grosso Bloomberg
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:03 min | 11 months ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Federal law I never figured out what the federal law violations would even be but did she also exaggerate I don't see actually was very careful in the wording because there are things that were done in connection with covering up the allegations in not dealing with the complaints in the appropriate way not sending them to the appropriate place that are arguably violations of state law but not criminal law So you know I think that you can construe those remarks to be violations of workplace related regulations and not necessarily criminal law So I'm not sure also what this James meant but it is possible I think to reconcile the evidence that was in the report with the decision not to prosecute Remember again too to James herself as a former prosecutor but she may have a different view I mean she may say look if this is my case and I was at the a sitting in Albany I would bring it And she would be justified in doing that if she's willing to take the risk that she can win that case David Torres is a different person made a different decision DAs have that kind of authority So whether it was her saying if it were me I would do a criminally or whether she was being a little bit more careful and talking not necessarily about the criminal laws but regulations that govern the workplace problems that happened in that office I'm not sure But I think it's possible that that's more what was going on here Thanks for being on the show Jennifer That's former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers who teaches at Columbia law school Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show the Elizabeth Holmes trial after hearing three months of testimony a jury in California found homes guilty of criminal fraud for her role in building and promoting the blood testing startup theranos into a $9 billion company that collapsed in scandal Whatever issues on appeal and how many years in prison is she facing I'm June grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

David Torres James Albany Jennifer Rogers Elizabeth Holmes Columbia law school Jennifer California Bloomberg
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:51 min | 1 year ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"For signs you tried to engineer stunning stock drops or engaged in insider trading It's an investigation that's thrilled legions of small investors as trading in at least several dozen stocks as being examined according to Bloomberg's sources Joining me is an expert in the area professor John Coffey of Columbia law school Jack tell us about this investigation and when it started Well this is something they've been planning for at least 6 months or more They've consulted with some of the leading financial economists in the country They are doing a very careful review of a large number of cases But I think what has most bothered them is the exploitation of a short interval between when a group of short sellers published negative research often on an anonymous basis or a pseudo anonymous basis And then praise heavily in the period between when they release it on one day and the next day when the company is able to respond When the company responds it may be able to come back with a convincing explanation or rebuttal and the market equilibrates and there's not much of a decline But for that first day there may be a 20% drop or something in the stock in the short sellers make out like bandits That doesn't look like it's fair to the small shareholders who tend to panic when they first hear the news and then get reassured when the company responds but then it's too late that they've already sold Hedge funds and researchers do have a relationship that's legal It is certainly legal but here is the question you can certainly hire researchers but it is arguably deceptive to publish a report as independent research which gives a greater credibility in the public mind When in fact you have already commissioned it and pay for it in advance and you ask them to research a particular target that you're interested in So our prosecutors looking for internal documents then of a relationship they will be.

John Coffey Columbia law school Bloomberg Jack
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:59 min | 1 year ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Was before the Supreme Court arguing that the 9th circuit wrongly nixed a copyright infringement win against designer H and M and several Supreme Court Joneses appeared skeptical of the 9th circuits interpretation of when a copyright registration should be invalidated for errors Joining me is an expert in intellectual property law A professor at Columbia law school Uni colors sued H and M in federal court Explain what the lawsuit was about and what happened So the lawsuit itself was fairly straightforward You and the colors is obviously a company that manufactures and sells designs of fabric And it had registered a whole bunch of different designs And it sued H and M for copying one of its designs In federal court And in the actual at the actual trial the jury concluded that there was in fact infringement and awarded unit colors a significant award of damages And then what happened at the end of the trial H and M discovered that unit colors when it had applied for its copyright registration had made an error had submitted inaccurate information to the copyright office and under a provision known as section 411 of the copyright statute it allows the certificate of registration to be invalidated and that's what the whole litigation is about If there was inaccurate information that was included on the application for registration with the knowledge that it was inaccurate Okay And so the district court found however that there was no knowledge of this inaccuracy And it continues to find and it found for unit colors and our firm DeJoy award And I think there was a reduction in the jury award but it awards the damages to unit color and also awards attorney fees reasonable costs Then what happens the matter gets appealed to the 9th circuit and the 9th circuit interprets that requirement of inaccurate information and knowledge to conclude that based on the lower court factual record itself and its own interpretation of the inaccuracy that all that was needed for the invalidation of the copyright registration was that unit colors should have known about a factual inaccuracy on the registration information that was submitted And since that was unambiguously shown on the trial record it's registration was invalidated and it would not succeed And that's the narrow question on which the Supreme Court took this petition to this case was to determine what kind of knowledge they are needed to be in order to invalidate a copyright registration for inaccurate information So whether unicolor committed fraud in filing the application well so in technical terms yes but not fraud That's not the legal term that's used They did use it occasionally It basically a little bit of background in 2008 Congress makes a change to the copyright statute to introduce this standard for invalidating and copyright registration for inaccuracy And it codifies this age old doctrine that is known as fraud on the copyright office Which is about giving the copyright office improper information inaccurate information in order to get a copyright registration But the statute itself doesn't talk about fraud And so the whole question technically was about what kind of knowledge you and the colors needed to have had for this invalidation to happen And unit colors makes the argument that while we did present inaccuracy on the underlying fact namely on whether all of the registration then if you want to talk about the group registration which was another wrinkle and complexity making this even more technical but unicellular says there was an inaccuracy yes on the facts However the legal standard that applies to those facts is what rendered it inaccurate In other words the inaccuracy M and a not just from the underlying facts but from the standard or registered ability which has remained ambiguous and we don't have any clear interpretation until the 9th circuit took a particular position on it And so we did not know when we submitted the registration that we were inaccurate as a matter of law and you should apply the standard to mean an inaccuracy on the legal application of the standard to the fact and therefore you should not invalidate our registration What was the main topic or what was the concern of the justices during oral arguments So I think a couple of things first trying to figure out what exactly the parties dispute and disagreement was in terms of their standard of knowledge What exactly each party meant by a sense of knowledge Was it going to be actual knowledge Was it subjective knowledge And a really a focus on the difference between knowledge of the underlying facts and knowledge of the legal standard is applied to that fact which renders it an inaccuracy and application I think that was the principal concern of the justices And in some sense most of the questions really turned on statutory interpretation This is going to be a case about statutory interpretation where there's going to be agreement that there is a knowledge requirement in the statute based on the plane meaning but the second question is going to be what is that knowledge relating to Is it just knowledge of the underlying facts like the 9th circuit said or is it knowledge of the legal standard as applied to the facts namely knowledge of the legal interpretation to render something and inaccuracy among the lines of what unit color is asking for And I think that was one of the main takeaways That's professor sham balcony of Columbia law school Coming up next on the Bloomberg launch show justice is express skepticism about Texas controversial abortion law.

Supreme Court Columbia law school Congress Columbia Texas
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:18 min | 1 year ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Story where watching brings us to capital the House votes today on whether to hold former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress Bannon has refused to comply with the house subpoena over the January 6th attack on the capitol For more in the move Bloomberg June grosso speaks to former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers who teaches at Columbia law school Bannon's lawyer has written to the committee and said his client will not testify or provide other evidence until the panel reaches an agreement with Trump or a court ways in on executive privilege Is that a strong argument Well it really looks more like a stalling tactic in part because the committee wasn't negotiating with Trump They haven't heard anything from Trump about this So we're really it's just a way to say I'm not cooperating at all And also you know remember executive privilege while we don't know the exact parameters of what it covers because there hasn't been a lot of judicial decisions on that We do know that you can't just use it as a blanket assertion So they have these Bannon for all sorts of documents and for testimony about not just one particular conversation but a whole series of events So the notion that you can say executive privilege I don't have to show up at all I don't have to send anything in It is ridiculous It's really kind of a moment by moment determination depending on who you're talking to and what it's about you know what the document is about So I think those things combine suggest that Bannon is not really making an assertion and good faith here but instead is kind of a starting some sort of absolute immunity that borrows him from having to do anything at all So if the house does pass a criminal contempt resolution that gets referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Do they have to press that They do not have to prosecute that within the discretion of the Department of Justice Then even though as you say it goes to the D.C. U.S. attorney you better believe it ultimately that decision is being made by Merrick Garland The attorney general So they will consider the strength of the case the pros and cons all of the kind of circumstances surrounding it and they will make a decision and not as legal and factual merit And as Columbia law professor Jennifer.

Bannon Steve Bannon Jennifer Rogers Trump Columbia law school Congress house House Merrick Garland U.S. District of Columbia Department of Justice D.C. Columbia Jennifer
The Life of Florynce Kennedy

Encyclopedia Womannica

01:46 min | 1 year ago

The Life of Florynce Kennedy

"Florence rey kennedy or flow was born on february eleventh nineteen sixteen in kansas city missouri to wiley zella kennedy while he made his living as a pullman porter and leader started taxi. Company the kennedy family experienced poverty during the great depression and racism from the local ku klux klan after a house in a majority white neighborhood but flow nevertheless described her childhood as an incredibly happy one. Her parents were exceptionally supportive of their daughters flow. Once said my parents gave us a fantastic sense of security and were by the time the big. It's got around to telling us that we were nobody. We already knew. Somebody flow was an excellent student and graduated at the top of her class after high school. She and her sisters opened a hat shop together. In kansas city flow also started getting involved in local political protests. She helped organize a boycott against a local coca cola. Bottler who refused to hire black delivery drivers in nineteen forty two flows. Mothers ella died of cancer afterwards flow and her sister. Grace moved to new york city and rented an apartment together in harlem in nineteen forty. Four flu started at columbia university or she majored in pre law after graduation flow applied to columbia law school but was denied admission. According to the dean of the law. School the denial was a result of flow being a woman not because she was black flow wasn't buying it and threatened to sue at which point the admissions board changed. Its mind she was one of only eight women and the only black woman in her law school class

Florence Rey Kennedy Wiley Zella Kennedy Pullman Porter Kansas City Ku Klux Klan Missouri Kennedy Depression Coca Cola Ella Harlem Columbia Law School Columbia University New York City Grace Cancer FLU
"columbia law school" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

01:46 min | 1 year ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"A temporary plan during the pandemic to stop the spread of covid, and that they successfully drove down infection rates among shelter residents. Tonight we could see some showers and thunderstorms. Cloudy skies will have love about 62 tomorrow Saturday showers. Possible thunderstorms likely in the afternoon. We'll have a high of about 71 degrees. You're listening to W In my C, It's 5 35. Support for NPR comes from W. N. Y C members and from Procter and Gamble, maker of Nerve. I've nerve relief Survive, is designed to reduce occasional nerve aches, weakness and discomfort, enhance her feet. Learn more at nerve. I've health dot com and Capital one with a saver card for various uses from dining and entertainment to streaming and grocery stores. Capital one. What's in your wallet Terms apply. Details at capital one dot com. From NPR news. This is all things considered. I'm Ailsa Chang in Los Angeles and I'm Ari Shapiro in Washington As the Supreme Court wrapped up its term this week, the conservative supermajority flexed its muscles. This was the first term of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court. And to look back at what the high court's decisions mean for the country. We are joined by three experts Tom Goldstein is founder of the leading Supreme Court website. SCOTUS BLOG Jamal Green is a constitutional law professor at Columbia Law School. And our own legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg is dean of the Supreme Court. Press Corps. Good to have all three of you here. Nice to be here. Good to be here. Will you each start by just giving a quick headline that you think sums up the term Well, mine would be that this was the first time with three Trump appointees. For the most part, they were trying to sort of reach consensus, even if doing so meant agreeing on very minimal outcomes. But on the last day in particular, you could see that this is.

Tom Goldstein Ari Shapiro Nina Totenberg Ailsa Chang Los Angeles Procter and Gamble Amy Coney Barrett Jamal Green Washington NPR Capital one Columbia Law School Trump Supreme Court three experts this week first time about 71 degrees three dot com
Lina Khan, Prominent Big Tech Critic, Will Lead the FTC

Marketplace

00:54 sec | 1 year ago

Lina Khan, Prominent Big Tech Critic, Will Lead the FTC

"Federal Trade Commission. As NPR's Bobby Allyn tells us, Khan becomes the agency's top enforcer after getting bipartisan support for her nomination from Congress. Lina Khan is a 32 year old Columbia law school professor who rose to prominence after writing on how decades old antitrust laws are capable of policing tech companies like Amazon. Her approached, adored by progressives, and some on the right has been dubbed hipster antitrust since it Bucks tradition. Most legal cases focus on whether a company's practices are raising prices for consumers but can argue that it doesn't matter if companies like Amazon are in fact making prices cheaper, She says the company uses press The Tory tactics to lock in its dominance and limit choice. Con is expected to be a guiding force on the FTC as it reviews acquisitions by companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon. That's Bobby Allyn reporting. This is NPR.

Bobby Allyn Lina Khan FTC Columbia Law School NPR Khan Amazon Congress Bucks Google Facebook
Surrogacy on the Stand

HISTORY This Week

02:29 min | 1 year ago

Surrogacy on the Stand

"When carol sanger started teaching at columbia law school in nineteen ninety-four surrogacy was really uncommon. In fact it barely existed. There wasn't the technology for it. And i remember that i made of a question with surrogacy in it on an exam but it was like hypothetical because there was no such thing. One of sanger's academic specialties. Is she puts it odd issues. In family law family law covers things like marriage divorce adoption custody and unin exam. She's trying to push students to think about some situation that they've never even considered something that sounds familiar but actually anything they've ever seen before. Wow and you're you're sort of craziest hypothetical you could think of surrogacy that people could create a baby as they call them then in a test tube and implanted in the mother who gave the ads and then all sorts of questions arise from that. And then you you end up watching as that sort of most obscure difficult legal question becomes this real legal question. Yes the first formal surrogacy contract in the us was drawn up in nineteen seventy six the same year carol sanger got her law degree and it was for an arrangement known as traditional surrogacy. They there's a couple that wants to have a baby. But maybe a woman in the couple is infertile or being pregnant would-be medically dangerous for this couple so they decide to use a surrogate that surrogate agrees to be artificially inseminated but the egg belongs to her so genetically. She's the mother she gets pregnant carries a child to term and then gives it to the other couple today. Most surrogacy doesn't happen this way. Lots of couples now use. What's called justitia surrogacy where the surrogate is not genetically related to the baby inside couples can use egg and sperm from themselves. And or from donors the ed guts. Fertilized in the lab and the embryo gets implanted in the surrogate through in vitro fertilization. Back in nineteen seventy six. That technology did not exist so that i nineteen seventy-six because he contract was for a traditional surrogacy arrangement and it was put together by a man named knoll keen. He was from michigan. He was a lawyer and he became known as the father of surrogacy

Carol Sanger Columbia Law School Sanger United States Michigan
Supreme Court rejects Trump attempt to shield taxes from New York City District Attorney's Office

John Landecker

00:38 sec | 1 year ago

Supreme Court rejects Trump attempt to shield taxes from New York City District Attorney's Office

"Today rejected former President Donald Trump's effort to keep his private financial records out of the Manhattan district attorney's office, Michael Grant says professor of tax Law at Columbia Law School I don't think these air unnecessarily limited to tax crimes. They're also maybe insurance fraud issues or bank fraud issues or wire fraud issues that have to do our mail fraud issues that have to do with over evaluations of property. Speaking in an ape INTERVIEW. The D A's office says the documents are necessary for a grand jury investigation into whether the former president's Cos violated state law. The script's

Manhattan District Attorney's Michael Grant Donald Trump Columbia Law School
"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:13 min | 2 years ago

"columbia law school" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"The vote's in Georgia for the presidential election have been counted three times confirming that President elect Joe Biden beat President Trump by 11,779 votes. In the traditionally Republican state. But in a 62 minute call on Saturday, just days before Congress is scheduled to certify the election results, President Trump pressure George election officials to find thousands of votes and re calculate the election result to flip the state to him. Just enough for him to pass Biden by one vote. Well, I want to do is this I just want to find Uh, 11,780 Votes, which is one more that we have. Georgia officials responded by saying they have no evidence of widespread fraud, and they'll stand by the election results. Joining these elections law expert Richard Roe fault a professor at Columbia Law School. First of all, what is your reaction to President Trump calling Georgia's secretary of state and asking him to find 11,780 votes? It looks a lot like his asking the secretary of state to commit a crime and in so doing it looks like he is committing a crime. I mean, it is illegal to attempt to the private residence of a state of a fair and impartial election. I'm quoted in the relevant federal law. It's illegal to procure or cause the tabulation of ballots that are known to be false or fraudulent. And that's again a pretty close paraphrase of the federal law. There's a similar Georgia law that basically makes it a crime to solicit somebody taking this election fraud, given all of the audit and re audits and recount that George has been through a swell as all the litigation It's been resolved in resolving result against her to say, Can't you find a 11,000 votes for me? Sounds an awful lot like asking somebody to commit fraud, and that itself is a crime. Now, the only thing that sort of draws you back from this is criminal law that she would be required that the action be knowing and willful that the person committing the act knows that it's a crime. And one thing that's a little hard to tell from all this is whether the president really believe that there are all these fraudulent votes out there and all these uncounted both or whether it's just, you know, a gimmick. And whether maybe he should believe it. Give it all of course decisions that all of the recount could have occurred, so to try and push somebody to co worse by threatening with prosecution or tow. That wouldn't do somebody to commit election fraud is itself a crime but both federally and in Georgia On the only hold up is this issue of state of mind. You have to be able to prove that This was done knowing that since we'll be committing fraud, there's also the rambling nature of the call with President Trump jumping back and forth between issues. And there's no explicit threat. No, I mean in some ways, it's a little bit like from what we know about the Ukraine call because this one's on tape, but he doesn't outright demand something. It's kind of on his asking and then giving evidence, But You know, I haven't looked into very many tapes of mob bosses. But people tell me that that's what it sounds like a very rarely stay out, right. You must do this. They kind of set it up in a certain way that puts pressure on. I think it sure looks and feels a lot like asking somebody to commit election fraud, whether it actually crosses that line. Given state of mind and given if you parse it, word by word would be a closer question. But it certainly whatever it is, it's totally improper, whether it is an outright crime, and there's certainly a case for calling it an outright crime. The big question also is who would prosecute this crime? Well, of course, right now. Federal government camp is probably not gonna prosecute. He's the president. But Presuming he doesn't attempt a pardon himself. Um, and there is a huge debate about whether President consult pardon Turning on January. 21, U. S attorney are starting on the afternoon of January 20th. He was attorney to bring the case and of course they probably are these. There's a good argument. Violates Georgia law and presumably the when a local district attorney attorney, a guest of the county, where the state officials were standing, I think that smoking county Could also open an investigation and the president cannot pardon himself for crimes committed under state law. Joe Biden has said that he's going to let the Justice Department do what the Justice Department's supposed to do without any influence from him. There's also a political question of whether the Biden administration wants to start by prosecuting the former president. Right? I mean, there are prudential questions as to whether this is a live move. I mean, The case for opening an investigation is that this is It's one thing to sort of try and have somebody try and commit election or something else. Present. United States is himself involved in a possible election fraud. From given the stakes. There's a lot to be said for saying, you know that nobody is above the law. On the other hand, I could certainly understand that is our to put it all behind, especially since it probably If this ever got into court probably is not completely open and shut. There's certainly a lot of ah lot there that could support an investigation and possibly an indictment coming up next on the Bloomberg along show. I'll Continue this conversation with Columbia Law Professor Richard Brah fault. And talk about what will happen on Wednesday in that joint session of Congress, in which lawmakers count electoral college votes for the two presidential candidates. At least 12 Republican senators have promised they'll join dozens of colleagues in the House in objecting to votes. I'm junior also, and you're listening to Bloomberg, it's the person Me. Me, me, me, me, but also you the payroll fast forwards his favorite or in film, but that the powdered doughnut,.

fraud President Georgia President Trump Joe Biden president Columbia Law School Congress George Uh Bloomberg Richard Roe attorney Ukraine Professor Richard Brah
Politicians, Constance Baker Motley

Encyclopedia Womannica

04:16 min | 2 years ago

Politicians, Constance Baker Motley

"Hello from Wonder Media Network I'm Jenny Kaplan and this is encyclopedia Britannica. Today's politicians but most of her life fighting for civil rights, she put her life at risk to change the course of American history, but she's often left out of history books. Let's talk about Constance Baker Motley. Constance Baker Motley was born on September fourteenth nineteen, forty one in new haven connecticut she was one of twelve children born to working class immigrant parents from the West indies. Constance. Was a bright child who grew up attending integrated schools and quickly fell in love with reading. She didn't learn much about black history in school. But what she did learn about civil rights leaders inspired her she decided she wanted to become a lawyer, but constance couldn't afford higher education. She took a job as a maid for a while before moving on to work for the National Youth Administration an organization focused on providing work an educational opportunities for young adults. Constance was giving a speech at a local community center one evening when her oratory skills impressed a wealthy white philanthropist. He, offered to pay for constants college tuition. So in nineteen, forty, one constance began attending college at Fisk University in Nashville. She later wrote that the train ride down to Tennessee was the first time she experienced overt racism and Jim Crow laws after being forced to ride in a broken down segregated train car, it was a perspective changing moment for constance two years into her attendance at Fisk Constance transferred to New York University and finished her bachelor's degree in economics. Then in nineteen, forty, four constance became the first black woman to be accepted to Columbia law school. After graduating from Columbia in nineteen, forty, six constants worked for the NWC peas legal staff under Thurgood. Marshall who later became a court justice over the course of her work at the N. double ACP constance assisted with almost sixty cases that ended up reaching the Supreme Court. She also personally argued ten supreme court cases and one nine. Constance is work integrated multiple southern state universities putting her toe-to-toe with racist governors determined to bar black students from schools. She also helped protect the right to peaceful protests and opened up parks for. Black. Americans. She did all that despite the sexism and racism personally experienced during her legal career. Some judges actually turned their backs on her and refused to hear her speak. But Constance didn't let others biopsies bar her from success. Her work made her a key player in the civil rights movement and she even occasionally represented Dr. Martin? Luther. King Junior. Constance was constantly in danger when she was working in the south racists threatened her life and the lives of other prominent figures in the black community constance was barred from staying in hotels. So she had to stay with local activists, but even that didn't make her feel completely safe her friend Mississippi civil rights leader Medgar. Evers. was murdered his own driveway. So in nineteen, sixty, five constance left her work in the south and moved back to New York City. Shortly thereafter, she became the first black woman to serve in the New York State Senate. She was also elected president of the borough of Manhattan which made her the first woman in that role. During her time as a politician constance focused on raising up under served communities in the city like Harlem and East Harlem in nineteen sixty, six president Lyndon Johnson appointed constance to the US. District Court in the southern district

Constance Baker Motley Fisk Constance Constance District Court Supreme Court Jenny Kaplan Wonder Media Network New York State Senate Fisk University Columbia Law School New York City West Indies New York University National Youth Administration Connecticut Nashville Mississippi Manhattan Lyndon Johnson
Delaying COVID-19 relief could do lasting damage

Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

02:20 min | 2 years ago

Delaying COVID-19 relief could do lasting damage

"We are not going to hazard a guess here about what is going to happen with negotiations on an economic relief bill the negotiations that the president shutdown yesterday afternoon, and then tried to restart piecemeal. Last night what we are going to do is deal the facts as we have them now, which is that there are no negotiations and as far as anybody knows, there is no help coming for this economy till after the election and maybe longer. So that being case two stories today on that topic, and then a political insight marketplace's Mitchell Hartman gets going with story number one the. Big Picture. Back, in March Washington sent three trillion dollars coursing through the economy's veins. One of the biggest infusions was six hundred dollars a week in extra unemployment payments to more than twenty million jobless Americans that expired midsummer and George Washington University economist J Shamba says the amount of cash going out to laid off workers cratered it fell from one hundred, ten, July two, thirty, four, million dollars in September. So there's this massive drop off to the economy and also to the most vulnerable households those twelve hundred dollar relief checks from the spring have been spent with most of the federal pandemic relief now gone. Slowing retail sales and personal spending Joseph Bruce. RSM Consulting says. A quarter of small businesses have closed. He predicts without more federal support including lending to small businesses more will fail and state and local governments won't be able to keep teachers and other essential workers on the payroll says Michael. `grats. At Columbia Law School. The loss of civil service jobs will disproportionately affect minority because they've been hired into those jobs. Bottom Line says Dan North at credit insurer, Euler Hermes, North America. Okay. Let's say we don't have a stimulus package. The economy gets pretty severely damaged in the short term probably for five years to get back on. The burden falling to families that are running out of time and money says Columbia's Michael `grats people are facing eviction. Difficulty paying for food and lodging. This is a desperate situation. One that the chaos in Washington isn't making any

Washington Joseph Bruce Michael Mitchell Hartman George Washington University President Trump Columbia Law School Euler Hermes Rsm Consulting North America Columbia Dan North J Shamba
President Trump's diagnosis throws election into chaos

Bloomberg Law

05:24 min | 2 years ago

President Trump's diagnosis throws election into chaos

"For the Corona virus has roiled the country. Perhaps throwing even more chaos into an already frenetic election year. Trump has been casting doubt on the validity of any election results for some time, and during Tuesday's debate, he suggested that the presidential election will be contested and that it might get ugly. If he doesn't win. I am urging my people, I hope it's going to be a fair election if it's a fair election what I am 100% onboard, but if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated I can't go along with that. Joining me His elections law expert Richard Bro Fault a professor at Columbia Law School, which start by explaining how the law gives states the power to take electoral votes back from the voters. Everyone knows the election for president is really an election decided by the electoral college, and every state has provided that its electoral votes will be determined by who wins the popular election on November 3rd. However, under the constitution, the state legislatures have the right to decide how their electoral votes are going to be capped. And although this has never happened soon, state legislators have collectively defined entrust this decision. The popular vote. The issue has been raised about whether or not after Election Day, the state Legislature of any given day could decide to cast that state's electoral vote on it. That issue has never come up before. We don't know what would happen if the state Legislature after Election Day half of the law that we're giving our electoral votes toe someone so but that issue has come out, partly because of Effort's raised by the president and others to cast a cloud over the legitimacy of the popular vote at a time when more people than ever are going to be voting by mail. One issue is how long will it take to get the popular vote tabulated and what issues are going to be raised about that? And to what extent Trump on the Republicans going to try and deny the legitimacy of the popular vote goes against them? The way of justifying an action by state legislature stay like in Pennsylvania or with conference to get its electoral votes to trump. So what is the timetable for this look like the timetable for this is partly driven by something called the Electoral Count Act. So in 18 87 following the disputed election of 18 76. Congress passed a law trying to bind itself in the future and how it would deal with disputed of electoral votes. And what it said is that so long as the state revolved any dispute about who's won its electoral votes by six days before the electoral college is supposed to meet this year is number 60. Provided that the state results always excused by six days before that, Congress has pledged to except the winner of the state's electoral votes that sometimes called the Safe Harbor deadline. They still take those results leader. There's nothing that prohibits him from accepting layer results. Those deadlines are really an artifact of Congress, but it's effectively about five weeks after Election Day. And one question is, well. Five weeks be enough time not just a tad mate all the absentee votes but also resolve the many challenges that likely to be brought against President. Trump has also said that on ly the votes that are known on election night matter, why is he saying that? Well, part of this I think relates to it is sometimes called the blue shift, and this year is being called the Red Mirage. All in the past. I don't think I made a big difference between Democrats. Republicans who vote by mail in recent election cycles. Think you've been seeing a slightly higher percentage of Democrats by now? Now that the election night numbers will be a bit more Republican, then the total numbers. This has been true nationally because the states have the heaviest of mail in ballots on the West Coast. Washington, Oregon, California And so you may remember in 2016 Hillary Clinton's election I popular vote margin of about a half a million or more grew over time to about 2.5 million. As more and more votes came in from the West Coast. So the assumption is especially this year with the president basically telling Republicans not the vote by mail that the election night vote in the close state We'll show Republican lead, which will be offset over the next couple of days as the nail and both are tabulated. He's basically saying we should. If you were the late vote, we should ignore the mail in votes. Now. An article in the Atlantic said that Republicans in the swing state of Pennsylvania have considered how the state Legislature could appoint electors of their own, choosing in the absence of a clear election night win. At what point does the law gives them the authority to do that? It's not clear that it would ever be legitimate, though it might be constitutional in that, right. Remember, for example, in Bush versus Gore, it took some five weeks to figure out who in Florida and even then that hadn't really figured it out. The Supreme Court came and stopped account. So we have had many elections in which the result was not known on election night or even a week later. Remember also that under federal law, military ballots are entitled to be received and counted off until 10 days after election Day to, actually under federal law, you really can't have a final results until 10 days after Election Day, whether or not what the legislation could just step in and declare a winner in a couple of questions come up one is is that the state Legislature alone or what about the governor has a Democratic government? What if you tried to veto this? President Trump has set a new

President Trump Legislature Congress Pennsylvania Columbia Law School West Coast Richard Bro Supreme Court Washington Florida Democratic Government Hillary Clinton Professor Bush
The Big Tech Hearing Proved Congress Isn't Messing Around

Press Play with Madeleine Brand

10:03 min | 2 years ago

The Big Tech Hearing Proved Congress Isn't Messing Around

"The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Roger the covert 19 pandemic. These corporations already stood out as titans in our economy. As American families shift more of their work, shopping and communications online, These Giants stand to profit. Locally owned businesses. Meanwhile, Mom and pop stores on Main Street facing economic price is unlike any in recent history. Rhode Island Democrat David Cellini, opening today's House hearing with the heads of the world's big tech companies. Amazon's Jeff Bezos out of Apple's Tim Cook, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Google Sunder Pitch I. The foremen faced hours of questions from House lawmakers over whether they've used their superpower status to crowd out competition. And enrich themselves. The House Judiciaries Antitrust committee, which Cellini chairs has been looking into that question for the last year. Joining us to talk about the hearing today is tech expert Tim Woo. He teaches at Columbia Law School and is the author of the book The Curse of Bigness, Anti Trust in the New Gilded Age. Him welcome back to press play. Thanks for having me here. Well, you've argued for a very long time that the's tech giants have gotten too big. What do you think today's hearing accomplished in terms of getting more support to break them up? Well, they I think there are you know, for the first time, putting the most intense documents right in front of them and seeing how they react, and I think what we've gotten out of them, especially on Facebook. Is already some admissions of anti competitive intent that to my mind, make the case for filing a complaint even stronger. And what were some of those admissions that you heard today. Well, Ah. Mark Zuckerberg was questioned about by Jerry Nadler about the his. Ah, why he bought Instagram and pretty much Zuckerberg admitted they were ah, dangerous competitors. We sought to eliminate them at Natalie reminded him that it's illegal to buy off competitors because I don't want to compete with them, and they left it there. But, yeah, that was, I think a big admission and the main thing I've taken from the hearing so far. But isn't that part of business of hostile takeovers and trying to squeeze out the competition isn't part of the American way of doing business, so there's a difference between beating out your competitors and buying them. And since about 18 90. It's been illegal to buy a company just because you're sick of competing with him. You know, you could imagine. Let's take Coke was tired of Pepsi People's Children, Coke and Pepsi, you know and said, All right, forget it. We'll just buy each other and, you know, settle the so so Now it's been illegal since 18 90 or so. Right. So when it comes to Facebook, what about the issues of how it Spreads misinformation, especially campaign misinformation, and, you know, fake news for lack of a better term. Yeah, I know. It hasn't so far. Um, it has a little bit sorry, especially hate speech. I think the big issue there that they're focusing on and Is this idea that that Facebook has an impunity because they have such a secure market position that they're not really afraid of advertising boycotts. They're not really afraid of people leaving That's the least a point that the House representatives were trying to make, and so therefore they don't really have an incentive to clean up their act. What about the other companies? Amazon that also has incredible market share. Can you first catalogue just how big Amazon is and how much bigger it's gotten since the current virus epidemic? Yeah, you know, the Amazon has closed in on the market cap of 1.5 trillion They have 280 billion in revenue. They have increased dramatically. Actually, stock prices increased since the beginning of the Corona virus by I don't know the exact percentage don't want to get it wrong, but by a tremendous amount, in fact, And there was one day in which Jeff Bezos gained $13 billion personally, so they are the biggest of big attack for the first part of hearing they didn't get any questions, but representative Dia Paul brought it in accusing them. Of lying in front of Congress about how they treat third party sellers and pressing bass. Those hard on how he runs his marketplace. So they they, they've got some of they've got some fire. Coming in. Yeah, I guess the problem. There is not only well they sell, you know products from third parties always there slow selling their own products, and so they are. I guess in competition with 1/3 party supplies on their own platform. How does that work? I mean, that's I think the acquisition or the problem is that people worry that Amazon has become more or less the dominant online retailer. They have some competition Homer, but you know, more or less dominant. So you make it on Amazon are Or you don't make it at all. And if that's the marketplace, the prospect of You come up with successful thing? I don't know Better mousetrap, and then Amazon makes their own copy of it. So the Amazon version of it and then sells it for less. You know, that turns into a sucker's game, and I think that's been the main complaint about Amazon is ah, less that they You know about their competitors or something but more that they have turned the marketplace into something of a rigged game for their own products. Right and a sweet noted Jeff Bezos is the world's richest man. Right now, the company is you outline is just so big. It's hard to even wrap your mind around it. Is there any way you could break up Amazon or hasn't just become too big to break up? That's a good question. You know, it hasn't been subject to a lot of discussion, probably for the reasons you suggest. Most of scrutiny of Amazon is how they treat the marketplace. I think for a true old school antitrust type who just believes that too much power to concentrated should always be broken. Would want to switch, you know, break Amazon into some kind of pieces. One way might be to break off their Web services division, which is a dominant in its space. You could also imagine, as with it and t breaking it into baby Amazons. I guess that are supposed to compete with each other. But I know it hasn't been unlike Facebook and even Google. Has been talks about how would you break them up? Think Amazon. It's been more about can they? Can you get them to run their at their market place better? And then Google. Obviously a search giant and it's become a verb. It's such an intimate part of who we are at this point again. How would you break up Google if you could It's a good question. Let me let me say that Google has come under fire this hearing both from Sicily knee on the idea that they are essentially eating their ecosystem That is to say. You know if you if you like like with Amazon actually similar that if You know, you could come up with a really successful Web service of some kind in your sort of small enough that Google will make a version of it and then send all the traffic to it so that that's the accusation against them. As for you know, what would you do to Google one You could say, don't do that. That's what the Europeans are trying to dio. Another would be to say, Well, listen, it Google, you run the search part and just leave it there. Don't do everything else. Okay. Maybe run Gmail, maybe right maps. But all these other little things that are just clones of other companies. Stay out of that, or make them be independent companies. I should add. By the way, there's you know, I'm maybe we get to this, but there's been AH, Google face us a lot of Republicans during the hearing, talking about different issues. Trying to get Google to admit that it Ah Is too friendly to China. Eyes too unfriendly to the US Pentagon. That's been another theme of this hearing is that I think should be mentioned. Well, you bring up China, and I guess the argument against breaking up these companies is that they're competing against Chinese companies, which In many cases have the backing of the state and there's there's no limit to their monopolistic practices. And so if these are global companies, should there be different rules when it comes to monopoly now than there were, you know, back in the 19th century. Yeah. Or the 20th? Yeah, that is the argument. So you know, kind of goes like this. If you break up Facebook or make fix books, life difficulty the Chinese will take over. It's kind of a national champion like argument. So we have to have our guys. Um I don't find it convincing at all. Last time we heard that kind of argument was when Japan was the all great mighty power that was going to take over everything in America. And they said it so you can't break up the tea and you can't break up IBM. I think we've had a better track record. Forcing American companies to be competitive. It's not breaking them up, at least putting him under heavy scrutiny like Microsoft and hoping a new generation arises. So yeah, I think that's a pretty lame excuse not to enforce the law that put it that way. So what do you think is going to come out of this? You know, I think from what I've heard there was some documents that were coming out of this that nobody has seen. And I think they put more pressure on the administration and also the states to file complaints. I would not be surprised if Google ends up on the receiving end of an antitrust complaint before November. And after this hearing, I wonder of Facebook's gonna get 12 or whether that's going to be something that the election decides. But, yes, I think it adds to the pressure to file actual cases as opposed to talking about it.

Amazon Facebook Google Jeff Bezos Mark Zuckerberg House Judiciaries Antitrust Co Columbia Law School David Cellini Tim Woo Rhode Island Tim Cook Titans Roger Apple Jerry Nadler Congress Microsoft Natalie Coke
The Big Tech Hearing Proved Congress Isn't Messing Around

Press Play with Madeleine Brand

03:35 min | 2 years ago

The Big Tech Hearing Proved Congress Isn't Messing Around

"The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Roger the covert 19 pandemic. These corporations already stood out as titans in our economy. As American families shift more of their work, shopping and communications online, These Giants stand to profit. Locally owned businesses. Meanwhile, Mom and pop stores on Main Street facing economic price is unlike any in recent history. Rhode Island Democrat David Cellini, opening today's House hearing with the heads of the world's big tech companies. Amazon's Jeff Bezos out of Apple's Tim Cook, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Google Sunder Pitch I. The foremen faced hours of questions from House lawmakers over whether they've used their superpower status to crowd out competition. And enrich themselves. The House Judiciaries Antitrust committee, which Cellini chairs has been looking into that question for the last year. Joining us to talk about the hearing today is tech expert Tim Woo. He teaches at Columbia Law School and is the author of the book The Curse of Bigness, Anti Trust in the New Gilded Age. Him welcome back to press play. Thanks for having me here. Well, you've argued for a very long time that the's tech giants have gotten too big. What do you think today's hearing accomplished in terms of getting more support to break them up? Well, they I think there are you know, for the first time, putting the most intense documents right in front of them and seeing how they react, and I think what we've gotten out of them, especially on Facebook. Is already some admissions of anti competitive intent that to my mind, make the case for filing a complaint even stronger. And what were some of those admissions that you heard today. Well, Ah. Mark Zuckerberg was questioned about by Jerry Nadler about the his. Ah, why he bought Instagram and pretty much Zuckerberg admitted they were ah, dangerous competitors. We sought to eliminate them at Natalie reminded him that it's illegal to buy off competitors because I don't want to compete with them, and they left it there. But, yeah, that was, I think a big admission and the main thing I've taken from the hearing so far. But isn't that part of business of hostile takeovers and trying to squeeze out the competition isn't part of the American way of doing business, so there's a difference between beating out your competitors and buying them. And since about 18 90. It's been illegal to buy a company just because you're sick of competing with him. You know, you could imagine. Let's take Coke was tired of Pepsi People's Children, Coke and Pepsi, you know and said, All right, forget it. We'll just buy each other and, you know, settle the so so Now it's been illegal since 18 90 or so. Right. So when it comes to Facebook, what about the issues of how it Spreads misinformation, especially campaign misinformation, and, you know, fake news for lack of a better term. Yeah, I know. It hasn't so far. Um, it has a little bit sorry, especially hate speech. I think the big issue there that they're focusing on and Is this idea that that Facebook has an impunity because they have such a secure market position that they're not really afraid of advertising boycotts. They're not really afraid of people leaving That's the least a point that the House representatives were trying to make, and so therefore they don't really have an incentive to clean up their act.

Facebook Mark Zuckerberg David Cellini Jerry Nadler Amazon Google Apple Tim Woo House Judiciaries Antitrust Co Titans Roger Jeff Bezos Tim Cook Coke Rhode Island Pepsi Columbia Law School Natalie
Zoom Call Eviction Hearings: 'They'll Throw Everything I Have Out On The Street'

All Things Considered

04:07 min | 2 years ago

Zoom Call Eviction Hearings: 'They'll Throw Everything I Have Out On The Street'

"Moratoriums are now expiring in parts of the country and some courts are now using zoom calls to hold remote fiction hearings for people late on their rent NPR's Chris Arnold reports and a vision hearing in Collin county Texas this week was like many other zoom calls full of first timers audio problems general confusion could have trainees receive respected galaxy in Rome that's the judge who's trying to figure out who's who with a bunch of different people on the call I'm sorry I was talking can you hear me now hello wave your hand yes it would be almost kind of funny except that what's at stake here is not renters are in this soon hearing with landlords who want to evict them renters like Dino Brock's oops re reason why your rep yes Sir my company closed due to the pandemic and you have to have a letter from your employer to prove that you were affected by the corona and I was getting the run around I haven't been able to get unemployment or anything the judge said since Brooks lives within the city of Dallas he wanted to review the current rules and evictions there so her case got moved in next week her landlord declined to comment we followed up with the abrupt after the hearing she's a navy veteran and she says she has a heart condition and it she says she has no friends or family that you can move in with and I'm scared now grow everything I have outside on the street I'm gonna start crying it's a nightmare that nobody wants to go through and a lot of times people don't know what their rights are renters may have protections right now but the rules are complicated and differ from state to county the city and in this room call hearing at people who did not dial in and their landlord did it they were just out a lock I'm gonna go for this one because I don't have it here and just tell me thank you have a default judgment position background and for default judgment that basically means you didn't show up we're giving your landlord the right to evict you that happened a five people in just this one a zoom call hearing now for some people doing the zoom call might be easier than getting to the court house but some legal experts say that for other people this could deny their right to due process which includes the right to be heard what if somebody doesn't have a decent smart phone or computer or online access the elderly can have trouble connecting on video calls Emeli Benford's a professor at Columbia Law School a missed call or not being able to log into remote hearing is the equivalent of failing to appear remote hearings may not only be the loss of basic rights they could also be the difference between housing and homeless miss Deena Brooks the navy vet and Dallas is worried herself about not having a home I have nowhere to go but I feel like very depressed rest out and I did I don't know what to do so these soon call hearings are happening because it's not safe enough to gather in court but apparently it's okay for people to be put out in the street in the midst of a pandemic okay that's cool it's a cruel situation Matthew Desmond heads at Princeton university's eviction lab today is announcing a new tracking system to monitor what's happening omits the pandemic and already with some moratoriums expiring he says eviction filings are rising in Milwaukee for example the kids are out thirty eight percent last week from where they should be on a typical week in June in Milwaukee with millions of Americans still out of work due to code red at me says even actions it should not be the answer here some landlord groups agree policy now is a vice president with the national multifamily housing council we should be working to help those who have been impacted by club in nineteen through robust government assistance like she says an emergency plan from Congress for renters and landlords meanwhile the zoom eviction hearings continue but law professor Emily band for expects that legal

Trump administration is rushing to gut environmental protections

The Healthcare Policy Podcast

05:53 min | 2 years ago

Trump administration is rushing to gut environmental protections

"Your host for the program is David. Cosso a DC based healthcare policy analyst. And we invite you to comment on the program by visiting the healthcare policy. Podcasts DOT COM. Now here's David. Welcome to the healthcare policy. Podcast I'm the host David Intro Cosso during this podcast discussed with Professor Michael Burger Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change at Columbia Law School. The trump administration's efforts to unwind the nation's environmental regulatory rules and the status of Climate Crisis Related Litigation. Professor Burger. Welcome to the program. Thank you for having me. Professor Burgers by was posted on the podcast website on background to state the obvious we interact with the environment constantly as a result. We are exposed to harmful animal-borne germs like viruses bacteria parasites or so called zoonotic diseases. Scientists s made more than six out of every ten known infectious diseases and three out of four new or emerging infectious diseases. Come from animals. Think Dengue Malaria Rabies covid nineteen according to the National Academy of Sciences. The environment is responsible for thirty percent of premature deaths. He Fi far higher percentage than healthcare prevents. This explains why minority Communities Face Higher Kobe. Nineteen related mortality. Upwards of three times their immune systems have already been compromised by degrade environment for example poor air quality despite for recognizing the adverse effects. The environment has on our health. The for example environmental impact statements. The trump administration has worked aggressively to gut the nation's environmental protections according to the Save Insanity Administration has unwound or ten zone wind approximately one hundred environment regulations ranging from power plant and car and truck. Co Two emissions. Mercury and hydrofluorocarbons emissions. Who was protecting wetlands from oil and GAS LEAK RULES REGARDING PESTICIDE? Use drilling fracking and coal leasing rules offshore oil and gas drilling rules etc concerned. The climate crisis listeners. Mary call my having discussed research. Polishing Twenty sixteen that concluded the adverse health effects resulting from the healthcare ministries greenhouse gas or carbon emissions our response properties Roberts of nearly one hundred thousand deaths annually in the US alone with begin discussing ministrations attack on Varma deregulations centers. Michael Burger so with that Professor Burger. Let me start by asking. If you can briefly describe the same incentives work sure The Saban Center is a think and do tank housed at Columbia Law School. We focus on Climate Change Law across the board meaning. We look at both mitigation related issues. How to go about reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as adaptation issues to respond to climate change impacts that are already happening that will only increase in intensity and frequency over time. We are not policy shop so we don't do policy analysis. We're really team of lawyers. That focus very much on the on the legal aspects of climate policy. I and we do this at all. Scales of government from the from the local to the global We have a number of different things. We do On the side of our think and do tank We do what thinks generally do we produce a original research and writing on a range of climate law related topics we also produce An put up on our website free for public. Use a number of different resources for researchers lawyers policy practitioners students and others. These include our climate change litigation databases both US and non us. Our silencing science tracker our climate deregulation tracker which we launched on inauguration day in two thousand seventeen our legal pathways deep decarbonisation database which includes Hundreds of model laws setup for governments at all scales to adopt To achieve deep decarbonisation in the number of other tools on the do side of our thinking do tank We engage actively with partners including international organizations Domestic and international NGOs. Political staffers And representatives other academic institutions And others to leverage our expertise to have an impact on the real world so in this regard be Senate comment letters on environmental impact statements to end proposed regulations. We filed amicus briefs On behalf of scientists coalitions cities and others in big climate cases And we regularly seek to influence an inform public decision making around climate law and policy. So you're busy. Yeah we have our hands especially these days. Yes Okay. So let's go to these days So my next question. Let's get to the meat of this Though would take hours to detail the administration's assault on the environment. Let's focus on air quality since among other things accounts for a seven million deaths worldwide or degraded air-quality so Let's focus more over again on this subject. So what's the administration's policy toward amongst other issues Power Plant emissions. This was the Obama. Administration's Clean Power Plan Auto Tailpipe pipe and particularly as well of course methane emissions which is a much more potent greenhouse gas.

Professor Burger David Intro Cosso Policy Analyst Columbia Law School United States Professor Michael Burger Save Insanity Administration Professor Burgers National Academy Of Sciences Barack Obama Assault Sabin Center Mary
Is this country ready for 2.5 million jobless claims in a week?

Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

04:59 min | 2 years ago

Is this country ready for 2.5 million jobless claims in a week?

"Know there is a thing that happens when a big story like this lasts for a while and I figure we are just about at that point now where it's happening so it's time to clue y'all in so we all know what's going on everything starts to sound the same like you've heard all the news updates before us for instance you've probably heard on this program. I don't know half a dozen times in the last week alone. That a number we are going to get tomorrow morning called first time. Claims for unemployment is going to be gigantic. Maybe two and a half million people filing claims against a normal week where it's two hundred and fifty thousand tops. I send that again because the big rescue bill that Congress still hasn't found a way to pass is throwing billions of dollars at unemployment insurance but every one of those two and a half million people who are GonNa Follow. More is a story in an unemployment system that is deeply deeply stressed from our bureau in Portland Oregon Marketplace's Mitchell Hartman Gazza's go so when we want this to go on here yeah okay. That's violin last. Friday was Steve Bench. Eros last day of work at the violin shop where he's fixed instruments for thirty years with music performances cancelled and business down. The shops closed indefinitely. We could use some work at home and we can do repairs but yeah. It's not exactly a Tele Commuting Business Ben. Shapiro didn't apply for unemployment right away. He'd heard horror stories of the Oregon website crashing. He finally tried last night and after some initial glitches got his claim. Filed Congress is sending money to the states to beef up staffing and administration but many states make qualifying for and receiving benefits. Difficult says Michael `grats at Columbia Law School since the great recession some states have reduced unemployment payments and eight states. No longer offer the standard twenty six weeks of benefits. So we've got poor and inadequate finance very inadequate coverage. It's just an archaic ineffective system. The Senate's new stimulus bill will send billions more to the states. Says Michelle Evermore at the National Employment Law Project? I think this will go a long way to smoothing the transition into into the next recession. It will pay benefits to workers staying at home to care for family members plus the self employed and independent contractors. This bill also will give everyone whether they're on the new pandemic unemployment assistance program or traditional unemployment insurance an extra six hundred dollars a week for four months that increases huge evermore says the goal is to replace workers pre corona virus paychecks and make sure people remain eligible for benefits without having to go out and look for work the last thing they should be doing during a pandemic. I Mitchell Hartman for marketplace. Another thing that people who two weeks ago had jobs but now don't have another thing they have to worry about is how they're gonNA get healthcare coverage from the workplace cultured as Marketplace's Megan McCarthy Carino has that one one week ago Sonia Zanardi was laid off from her job as a bartender in Washington. Dc. She's scrambling to apply for unemployment. Figure out how shall pay rent and what she's going to do about health insurance since her employer stopped. Subsidizing it on April Eleventh. Probably the scariest part of it for me. Because has we're going into a pandemic. She figures she'll get insurance on the health care exchange but in the past. That's cost four hundred dollars a month for a plan with a four thousand dollar deductible. She hasn't figured out. If she'll qualify for Medicaid but for now Cobra is just too expensive. I don't ever been this scared about my financial situation. But at least her former employer has paid for insurance for the next month. That's what Asher. Scofield is doing for five former employees of his shuttered gift shop the Frog toad in Providence Rhode Island being covered at a time. Like this is very scary. And we just want to make sure that everybody's taking care of through this that even before the pandemic more than twenty seven million people in the US had no insurance that includes many part time freelance and GIG workers who don't get health care or other benefits through an employer but might not qualify for public assistance. What is transpiring now is underscoring the critical need for us to refashion the social safety net. Nyu Business Professor Aroon soon. Dhiraj on says the reliance on traditional fulltime employers to deliver safety net benefits for workers was breaking down long before the current crisis. I'm Megan McCarthy Carino for marketplace. There was big rally today on Wall Street on news then. Economic Rescue Package was going to get done and then it didn't get done still up though we'll have the details when we do. The

Congress Oregon Steve Bench Mitchell Hartman Gazza Megan Mccarthy Megan Mccarthy Carino Shapiro Mitchell Hartman Michelle Evermore Senate Portland Day Of Work Economic Rescue Package Asher Columbia Law School United States Self Employed Dhiraj
Trump declares himself 'chief law enforcement officer' of America

Bloomberg Law

05:57 min | 3 years ago

Trump declares himself 'chief law enforcement officer' of America

"After commuting the sentences of former Illinois governor rod the glade vision former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik among others president trump seem to take his authority one step further yesterday I'm actually I guess the chief law enforcement officer of the country but I've chosen not to be involved my guest is former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rogers who teaches at Columbia Law School so chief law enforcement officer is the designation usually given to the U. S. Attorney General can trump claimed that title as president I don't think so I mean he's not a law enforcement officer at all I mean he's the head of the executive branch of course and you know it is true to say that there's no legal barrier to him presiding over and involving himself in the department of justice's work but that's not the same thing as saying he's the chief law enforcement officer which suggests that he actually has not just the authority but a reason to do that like he's supposed to be involving himself in that matter he said this after he granted clemency in several politically charged cases without going through the established pardon process what do you see this ad is it trump flouting his authority is it from setting up future pardons for friends or something else well I think both of those things I mean it you know some of the people pardoned or granted commutation yesterday did have relationships with him I mean rod Blagojevich for example was on celebrity apprentice with him years ago so it's certainly some of that but I think it's also the first point you make which is I don't care about how things are supposed to be done I don't care about the men and women of the justice department who worked so hard in these cases and who in the normal pardon process would give me the benefit of all of their wisdom about these cases I'm just going to do whatever I want to DO and guess what no one can do anything about it I mean that's a big part of the message here that he's not only flouting the regular kind of establish procedures by you know kind of thumbing his nose at all of us in a way there's nothing we can do to stop it well he also contrary to the stated preferences of Attorney General William Barr he continued his tweets about the Roger stone case and denigrated the judge in that case you have to wonder where he's going with that yeah I mean this is also part of a pattern he has been denigrating judges since he was a candidate you know remember he what he said about the judge who had part of the fraud case against his trump university so they know this is part of the pattern for him and the and again it's you know I can do what I want no one can stop me not even you know I'm I'm not even considering off limits that another branch of government you know he'll go ahead and denigrate judges and challenge them and of course the judiciary is you know a separate and co equal branch of government so that's part of his pattern as well I don't think the judge Amy Berman Jackson is or will be intimidated or wait at all by what the president is saying so won't have that particular impact but again it's part of him telling the rest of us you know I am I can do whatever I want I'm uncontrollable and he's going to continue to be that way I think what does this do to the career prosecutors at the justice department he's commenting on cases and judges and granting clemency without going through the process have you talked to colleagues in the justice department to see where they're at yeah it's really demoralizing for people at the justice department I mean I certainly spoken with many former colleagues of mine and I know also that people still in the department are just very concerned about what's going on you know they are taught from day one we all were that your job is to do the right thing it is in a political job you don't take those issues into account and you're not supposed to do favors for people you know friends of people in power just like you're not supposed to go after the political enemies of the people in power and so to see the president urging those things that are so contrary to the fair administration of justice as all people in the justice department swear to uphold is really concerning and so I think that the department is really revealing right now which is part of the reason that Bill bar with I think trying to calm people down with the statements that he made the other day there are also rumors that bill Barr was going to resign as Attorney General of course the department spokeswoman said he has no plans to resign with those rumors possibly aimed at an audience of one president trump I have no idea you know whether that was aimed at at trump to push back on him a little bit or aimed at the men and women in the department to say don't worry I take this very seriously and I'm ready to resign if you know our independent our ability to do our job continues to be meddled with by the president but I also hate those statements of the rumors of those statements with an entire shaker full of salt because you know it seems to me that bill Barr has been doing exactly what he had wanted to do in terms of increasing executive power at the expense of his own department since he came into the job so the notion that as successful as he's been seeking really exactly these results that he's working on now you know that he would resign now seems to me a far

Bernard Kerik Illinois New York President Trump
Exxon to face trial in New York investor fraud lawsuit

Morning Edition

02:11 min | 3 years ago

Exxon to face trial in New York investor fraud lawsuit

"Exxon Mobil goes on trial in New York today in the state says it misled shareholders about the risks that the company faces from climate change it's a civil lawsuit and more cities and states are doing the same thing they're trying to hold oil companies accountable for climate change and pears laurel Wamsley has the story new York's Attorney General is suing Exxon Mobil arguing that he defrauded the public for years by misrepresenting how carbon regulation would affect the company's financial outlook the case goes back to twenty fifteen when reports found that while Exxon scientists were in Ridley researching climate change to plant operations the company was outwardly casting doubt on global warming then New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman told PBS newshour how its investigation could lead to legal action there's nothing wrong with with advocating for your own company which you're not allowed to do is commit fraud the state argues that acts on used two different ways to calculate carbon costs and wasn't clear when it was using one or the other which had the effect of making its assets appear more secure than they really work that in turn affected it share price the lawsuit says and defrauded investors that would be a violation of a New York statute known as the Martin act it's the same law that's been used by previous Attorney General in the state to bring charges against big financial firms there's not a general law for better or worse against lying in general but there is a law against lying to shareholders that's Michael Gerard the climate law expert at Columbia Law School he says one focus in the case will be excellent investment and the carbon intensive Canadian oil sands project some investors worried won't make financial sense under tougher climate regulations and all the details get a little wonky this is a case with potentially big consequences this is the first case on alleged securities fraud about climate change over to go to trial Exxon says the lawsuit is politically motivated and driven by anti fossil fuel activists the company says it was honest with shareholders about how it calculated carbon costs Effexor loses a could be vulnerable to a string of lawsuits in other states that's because it had to give New York thousands of pages of documents and a lawsuit elsewhere will be able to use what comes out in the trial to build their own arguments laurel Wamsley

Fraud Laurel Wamsley Martin PBS Attorney Exxon Securities Fraud Columbia Law School Michael Gerard Exxon Mobil Eric Schneiderman Ridley New York
Payday Loans And Debt Traps

The Indicator from Planet Money

07:58 min | 4 years ago

Payday Loans And Debt Traps

"So her job is in high demand. Getting work was not a problem, but covering all her expenses. That was a problem. Amy was living in Detroit with her husband and three little kids. She says the bills had started to feel crushing we were barely making it, and I came across something about a payday loan, and I called my husband. And I said, you know, we have so many bills right now and taken out this six hundred dollars would really help us right now. Amy went into the payday lending store to just see if she could get alone just a little one just six hundred dollars to get them through this tough month you walk in and it just looks like a Bank. There's chairs all around and there's a place for your kids to collar coloring books and play. It's just the friendly feeling type of deal anyone up to the round counter and asked the receptionist. How to get a loan? She says she told them what her paycheck was. And they said sure you can have six hundred dollars. How did you feel when you took out the first loan? I felt like yes, I can pay this Bill Amy says it felt like she could breathe again at least for a couple of weeks that is when she needed to pay the payday lender back with interest. Of course, have the pace six seventy six forty five. That's a lot of money. Still remember the amount six seventy six forty five. Just now popped in my head. Like, that's how much we paid that extra seventy six forty five was just the interest on the loan for two weeks play that out over year. And that's an annual interest rate of more than three hundred percent. In other words, if Amy had kept the loan for the full year and paid the same interest rate. She would have owed more than eighteen hundred dollars in interest. But for the moment, it was just six seventy six forty five and Amy had every intention of paying it back. But when she went back into the payday loan store a couple of weeks later it felt like she couldn't pay it back quite yet. So she took out another payday loan to pay off the six seventy. Six forty five because something else went wrong, you know, or one of our cars died or we needed. We needed something fixed that the house. It was always something something coming up which is life week after week. Amy was doing this taking out loan after loan. It's goes on and on. But is the feeling when you would go in. Did it feel like a relief when you get the money every week? Did it feel like no I was so mad at myself all the time. Oh because I was doing this constantly to myself. And it went on for years to people calling you on the phone. You know, you gotta pay this payday loan. You get into this really bad place financially, Amy and her husband started using payday loans to pay off credit cards and credit cards bath, payday loans, and the amount they owed kept climbing and climbing. It's crushing to it's crushing. It's it's hard. It's you feel defeated. Like wouldn't us ever going to end my ever going to be financially stable, am I ever gonna get their home? I going to take care of my family this cycle Eimi found herself in it's the cycle that most of the people who take out a payday loan find themselves in a study from the center for responsible lending found the fully half of payday loan borrowers default on a payday loan within two years of taking out there. First loan. This is of course, why the CF PB the consumer financial protection bureau had planned to put payday loan regulations in place later this year. Those new rules were announced under the Obama administration would have restricted who payday lenders could lend to namely, they would only be able to lend to people who could prove a high likelihood that they could immediately pay the loan back. How much of a difference with those regulations have made an industry. A lot of different. Ronald man isn't economist and a professor at Columbia law school. He spent more than a decade studying payday loans and Ronald says the regulations would have basically ended the payday loan industry because it would have eliminated around seventy five to eighty percent of payday loans customer base. He says payday lenders are in the business of making loans to people who can't really afford the loans that they take out if you take away that group that customer base than the whole industry would pretty much start to vanish read these products that are there's a fair chance. People are going to go to pay them back Ronald says that is exactly why about twenty states have either banned payday loans entirely or really restricted them. But he says the problem with the federal ban on payday loans is that it's not really financial regulation so much as a kind of ethical regulation, and he says in a free market. There's an argument that the government should be really careful in that area sort of controversial that we should keep people from boring money today. Lead that they need because we think that the wrong thing. Needed course, one option would be just cap interest rates after all payday lenders make a lot of money they lend about forty six billion dollars a year and taken about seven billion dollars in fees. But Ronald says, it regulating interest rates would probably have a similar effect as just banning them. It would put them out of business and Ronald 'as payday lenders are serving a huge community of people who can't really get money. In other ways, often they're borrowers with bad credit who can't get a loan from a Bank or a credit card things like that and lending people in this way, he says it's a risky business and payday lenders have to charge a premium for taking on that risk. Now. A lot of states do limit the interest rates that lenders can charge Ronald says in those states. There are not a lot of payday lenders on the other hand more than thirty states. Don't really have restrictions at all on payday lending, and in those states payday lending has gotten huge or you might say super sized. The number of petty loons towards about the fame if a number McDonald's, that's a lot. Actually, there are more payday loan stores than McDonald's or Starbucks. There are nearly eighteen thousand payday loan stores in this country right now. And that is today's indicator nearly eighteen thousand payday lending stores in the US Rhone says the problem with shutting down this behemoth. Is that demand won't go away? The industry would probably just move online. Where would be really hard to regulate? He's a real question. He thinks we should be asking is why there is so much demand for these loans in the first place you ruined to step back and say or a half. One other so many people in our Connie that are struggling so hard that they desperately need some money to pay medical bills or make a car payment people like Amy Marano, she and her husband got deeper and deeper in debt they had to declare bankruptcy and they lost their house. The turning point for me was having two at forty three live with my mother again and not being able to take care of our family the way that we wanted to and not having a home of our own was the worst feeling in the world. It's devastating Amy says at that moment, she decided no more payday loans, ever, she went through bankruptcy. And since then she says, she has been incredibly disciplined about her budget. She and her family have their own place again, and she's currently working two jobs. She says they all live on really strict budget. Just necessities. Of course, Amy says, she hasn't escaped payday loans entirely. I see this one. This these commercials all the time. It's like, you know, three people standing in a robe and then pops up up above their head. How much they're going to get. And it's like at the end of them like, no. It's not worth it. It gets you into a bad place. Find a different solution. A better solution.

Bill Amy Ronald Man Detroit Amy Marano United States Eimi Obama Administration Mcdonald Columbia Law School Professor Starbucks Connie Rhone Six Hundred Dollars Forty Six Billion Dollars Eighteen Hundred Dollars Seven Billion Dollars
Antitrust 3: Big Tech

Planet Money

03:47 min | 4 years ago

Antitrust 3: Big Tech

"Today's show is part three of what I have been calling the planet money antitrust trilogy. The show we much better. If you go back and listen to the first two episodes. If you do not here is the text that scrolls on the screen at the beginning of the movie. United States government used to us antitrust law a lot to protect small companies against big companies in the name of competition. Then there was a backlash led by judge named Robert Bork. He wrote a book called the antitrust paradox. That argued antitrust enforcement had gotten out of hand and the government needed to back off now in the past couple of years as a few tech companies have gotten very big and very powerful a backlash to the backlash has begun. My name is Lena Khan, and I'm an academic fellow Columbia law school in a senior fellow at the open markets institute. And you're a lawyer I'm a lawyer when Lena Khan was in law school two years ago. She wrote a paper for the law review. What was the title of the paper Amazon's antitrust paradox an allusion to that Bork book the antitrust paradox? Why did you choose that title? I was interested in exploring how Bork's approached antitrust had enabled Amazon's rise and the paradise. Talks with Amazon seemed to me that here we had a company that was amassing dominance in various markets. But our current approach to antitrust law was really keeping us blind. So that dominance, and so that to me seemed like an interesting tension or current approach to antitrust law. Bork's approach is known as consumer welfare, and the basic idea is low prices and lots of choices are good. If consumers are getting these things, then there's no antitrust problem and clearly Amazon has delivered low prices and lots of choices. So it hasn't run into much trouble with antitrust law in the United States, and yet Lena argued in this paper, there are things that Amazon has done that have been bad for competition. So her wonky article comes out, she hears from a few antitrust lawyers. Then her article gets mentioned in the New York Times that spurred kind of a new wave of interest. And so I just started receiving more and more emails somewhat modest about this, which I respect that. Tremendous amount. Even though it's not good for our story. What she is not saying is that this student law review article completely blew up. I mean, I know you didn't go on Ellen or whatever. But we're did you go. I got big. We know it got big Lena. Con learn that the rise of a few giant tech companies had made this very wonky thing antitrust policy, suddenly feel urgent and important to lots of ordinary people. Is it bad? These companies are so big are they assigned that the free market is failing us and competition is disappearing. Do we need to think about antitrust in a new way congressman wanted to meet with her the Washington Post in the Atlantic wanted to profiler CNBC NPR, and she joins me now to talk about how antitrust law handles Amazon. Lena, thank you for being with us. Good to be here. Let me first say Amazon is among NPR's corporate sponsors, right? We're going to have to talk about that. Hello and welcome to planet money. I'm Jacob Goldstein. I'm Kenny Malone today on the show, Amazon one of our corporate sponsors and Facebook, also corporate sponsor and Google. I think a corporate sponsor Nata corporates. Oh, okay. But all of this is kind of the point these three companies are suddenly everywhere, they have an incredible amount of money and power and Lena is part of this new wave of thinkers who are starting to say, maybe the rise of these giant tech companies is a sign that antitrust is broken, and we need to fix it.

Lena Khan Amazon Robert Bork United States Columbia Law School NPR Ellen Kenny Malone New York Times Jacob Goldstein Senior Fellow Facebook Google Washington Post Congressman Cnbc Two Years
N.Y. sues Exxon, says it lied to investors on climate risks

Morning Edition

02:21 min | 4 years ago

N.Y. sues Exxon, says it lied to investors on climate risks

"About Exxon refusing to write down the value of its fossil fuel assets that are still in the ground two sets of books. One. Incidentally that. They were keeping. So that they understood what reality was and another more nuance three hours. If you will for the investment public the allegation really is that the company is not as big as it says it is. And it's not worth as much as it says, it is Exxon declined to comment to NPR but released a statement that said in part, these baseless allegations or a product of closed door lobbying by special interests, political opportunism and the attorney general's inability to admit that a three year investigation has uncovered no wrongdoing. Exxon Mobil has moved to thwart the investigation by attorneys general in three states, alleging it's a conspiracy involving the Rockefeller Foundation. Tort lawyers. Environmentalists said democratic Agee's Michael burger is a professor at Columbia law. School who specializes in climate change law burger doubts Exxon. Conspiracy theories are going to hold up in court. This is about climate change. It's about the risks that regulation poses to the fossil fuel industry over the next half, century or more. But this particular complaints is about corporate fraud at the end of Wednesday's trading on Wall Street.

Exxon Exxon Mobil Michael Burger Rockefeller Foundation Fraud Columbia Law Agee NPR Attorney Professor Three Hours Three Year
New York Sues ExxonMobil

NPR's Business Story of the Day

02:56 min | 4 years ago

New York Sues ExxonMobil

"Support for this podcast and the following message. Come from internet essentials from Comcast. Connecting more than six million low income people to low cost high speed internet at home. So students are ready for homework class graduation and more. Now, they're ready for anything are the energy giant. Exxon Mobil is accused of misleading. Investors and shareholders analysts about the cost of climate change to the company's bottom line, New York's attorney general Barbara Underwood is suing the company for defrauding shareholders and NPR's. Wade Goodwin has the story. The lawsuit doesn't hold Exxon Mobil liable for helping to create climate change. It accuses the energy giant of misleading. The investing public about how global warming was affecting the value of the company's fossil fuel assets around the world, what the attorney general is essentially saying is you kept two sets of books. Thompsons Ello is the director of finance for the institute for energy economic. And financial analysis and former New York state comptroller Santillo says the allegations are about Exxon refusing to write down the value of its fossil fuel assets that are still in the ground two sets of books one in certainly that they were keeping. So that they understood what reality was and another more nuanced reality, if you will for the investment public the allegation really is that the company is not as big as it says it is and it's not worth as much as it says, it is Exxon declined to comment to NPR but released a statement that said in part, these baseless allegations or a product of closed door lobbying by special interests, political opportunism and the attorney general's inability to admit that a three year investigation has uncovered no wrongdoing. Exxon Mobil has moved to thwart the investigation by attorneys general in three states. Alleging it's a conspiracy involving the Rockefeller Foundation. Tort lawyers environmentalists and democratic Agee's Michael burger is a professor at Columbia law. School who specializes in climate change law. Burger doubts Exxon's conspiracy theories are going to hold up in court. This is about climate change. It's about the risks that regulation poses to the fossil fuel industry over the next half, century or more. But this particular complaints is about corporate fraud at the end of Wednesday's trading on Wall Street. Shares of Exxon Mobil were down about three percent. Wade goodwin. NPR news Dallas support for NPR. And the following message. Come from circus. Oh, crystal a frozen playground of world-class ice skating and stunning acrobatics. See it live at Capital One arena from December fifth to ninth tickets

Exxon Mobil Exxon NPR Wade Goodwin Attorney Michael Burger New York Comcast Rockefeller Foundation Thompsons Ello Capital One Professor Barbara Underwood Santillo Director Of Finance Fraud Comptroller