This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams was one of four Democratic mayors of sanctuary cities who testified before the House Oversight Committee last week as the White House threatens to pull federal funding from Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York. But the criminal corruption case against Adams took center stage as the mayor was grilled by several Democratic lawmakers about the allegations that the Justice Department agreed to dismiss the charges in return for helping the Trump administration with its
deportation efforts. Representative Robert Garcia, a Democrat from California, questioned Adams.
And Mayor Adams, I also want to be very clear, are you selling out New Yorkers to save yourself from prosecution?
No deal, no quick pro qual and I did nothing wrong and anything dealing with this case. At a deference to Judge Hoe, who's now addressing it, I'm going to refer to his actions.
Well, mister Mary, it appears to me at least that you are selling New Yorkers out. It appears that you are working with Tom Homan, who is clearly clearly focused on family separation and deportations.
But it appears that Adams is a step closer to getting the criminal charges dismissed. Paul Clement, the former US Solicitor General appointed by Judge dale Hoe as a friend of the Court to advise him, has recommended the case be permanently dismissed. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner maccarter In English, Bob explain why Judge Hoe appointed Clement.
Judge dale Hoe took the very unusual step of appointing Paul Clement, who had been the US Solicitor JAI during the George W. Bush administration and has argued more than one hundred cases before the Supreme Court, to give him advice with regard to how to handle this dismissal motion, essentially based upon his view that he was getting a
one sided argument. In other words, both the defense lawyer and the government in this case were seeking to have the indictment dismissed, and the judge wanted to hear the other side of the argument. That's why he appointed Paul Clement to give him advice as to what issues he should be considering. Really, what his options were here. With regard to this motion.
Clement wrote a thirty three page brief in response for the judge. One important point was that the executive branch is the one that chooses when to prosecute and when not to prosecute.
You're exactly right that Paul Clement did not really get into the merits of these arguments from both sides. If you were called, the acting Deputy Attorney General had ordered the Southern District to dismiss the case, and there were a series of prosecutors, including the acting US Attorney at the time, who resigned rather than follow that order, saying that the reasons for the dismissal were improper, that it was about politics and not about the merits of the case.
But ultimately, mister Clement concluded that the judge here doesn't really have much in the way of options. That essentially, if the executive branch, meaning the prosecution and the Department of Justice, choose to dismiss the case, there's not much the judge can do about it. He pointed out that ultimately, even if the court were to order the case to go forward, the government could simply run out the clock,
in other words, do nothing with the case. Until there was what's called a speedy trial violation, and then the defense would move to dismiss the case, so short of appointing a special prosecutor, which is rarely done, as it's possible that it's not even constitutional to do it. In this circumstance, mister Clement recommended to the judge that there's really nothing for him to do here but to grant
the dismissal. And that's why he didn't get into the back and forth between the former Southern District prosecutors and the Department of Justice as to the motivations behind this motion to dismiss the indictment against Mayor Adam.
Clement didn't discuss the evidence against Adams, the strength of the charges against him, he wrote, Private citizens and courts can't force a prosecution, no matter how clearly someone has violated a federal criminal statute. Of course, the Justice Department didn't discuss the evidence when it first ordered the dismissal.
If you remember, it was made explicit by the acting Deputy US Attorney Emo Beauvat that this directive to dismiss the case was not done on the merits. He expressly said that he was not looking at either the evidence
or the legal theory behind the case. Now, in a more recent in filing by the Department of Justice last Friday, they did mention the merits of the case, so they have shifted slightly to argue in papers they filed before the court that the legal arguments underpinning the bribery charges against Mayor Adams, they said, was weak. That is something that is within the scope of the Department of Justice certainly to consider in deciding whether or not to continue
to pursue the case. But it really wasn't the driving force, and they again reiterated the earlier statement that the prosecution of Mayor Adams would interfere with his ability to cooperate with this administration moved to crack down on illegal immigration, and that really was the basis to seek could dismiss the indictment at this time.
Danielle says Soon in her letter said she was confident in the case that the charges against Adams could be proved and that's unusual to hear from a prosecutor.
Yeah.
In the letter that daniel Soon, the former US Attorney for the Southern justic wrote to the Department of Justice in response to that directive. She did discuss the merits of the case, which is highly unusual. Prosecutors generally do not talk about the merits of the case outside of the context of the courtum itself. They don't make these extra judicial statements. They don't talk about where the case
might be going. They let all of their talking take place inside the courtroom, during legal arguments or in their briefs. But she did mention that she believed that the case against Mayor Adam was found. She pointed out that the investigation had begun many, many years ago, before the outgoing US Attorney, Damien Williams, had been involved in the case.
One of the things that the Department of Justice pointed to was an op ed written by Damien Williams as soon as he left the position of US Attorney for the Southern District, in which he questioned the ethics of the aministration. He didn't mention Mayor Adams by name, but it was a clear reference to the current administration in the sense that he made a comment about the current
administration having lost its moral compass. The Department of Justice, in its filing on Friday, had gone through certain text messages and emails from missus soon and from the prosecutor who was leading the Adams case, where they commented upon the op ed written by Damian Williams and how unhappy they were with it, and they thought it was improper and they wanted to distance themselves and the case from
those comments. And the Department of Justice pointed out that even the prosecutors who are pursuing the case had some questions about whether it was politically motivated, but in the end, there was never really a discussion here, as you say,
about the merits of the case. The decision was made simply based on the fact that they thought that the prosecution would interfere with the mayor's ability to carry out the administration immigration policy, and that that ultimately was enough to dismiss the case.
The judge has concluded that Damian Williams hadn't violated any professional obligations in writing the op ed. I mean that was done after he left office, so I don't see what relevance it has.
You're exactly right. The judge did conclude that mister Williams hadn't violed any professional obligations. Clearly, as prosecutors, it's not the kind of thing you want to see out there, because it does inject an issue into your case that
you do not really want to deal with. But in the end, as you said, Ms. Bethoon and the prosecutor who is leading the case had no question in their mind that this was a case that was found both legally and based on the evidence, and the Department of Justice has not really challenged that in any significant way. Their position has been that it is appropriate for them
to have made the decision to dismiss the case. Now, they asked for the case to be dismissed without presudice so that it could possibly be reinstated after the election, but they wanted the case dismissed so that Mayor Adams could continue to focus on his ability to enforce the Trump administration's immigration policy.
There is, i believe, just one line in the thirty three pages where Clement says there's evidence that suggests the decision to dismiss the indictment was undertaken in bad faith. So that's one line dropped there, referring to, you know, Emil Beauvey's order to dismiss the indictment being in bad faith. Where does the judge weigh that.
Mister Clement did make mention that the evidence and he's quoting here suggests the decision to dismiss the indictment was undertaken in bad face. The Department of Justice has made the argument that the prosecution was politically motivated. Ultimately, Paul Klement decides that the judge does not have the weigh in and it's unnecessary for him to determine whether or not the case was politically motivated from the start, or whether or not this dismissal was motivated by some kind
of improper political means. Mister Clement said, ultimately it was unnecessary for Judge Hoe to settle that dispute.
Under either view.
He wrote, there was little justification for allowing a potential reindictment of the mayor, and that's why he recommended to the judge that he grant the motion to dismiss. But unlike what was requested by the Department of Justice, he
said that that dismissal should be with prejudice. In other words, it was going to be dismissed in a way that the prosecution could never bring the case down the road, and that would eliminate the potential for critics of this decision to be able to argue that the Department of Justice was trying to have it both ways, was trying to have the case dismiss now, but leave the prospect of bringing that indictment down the road in order to try to continue to influence the mayor to cooperate with
the Trump administration's immigration policies.
Stay with me, Bob. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show is the judge likely to follow Clement's advice and the new LA District Attorney does a one to eighty on his predecessor in the Menendez brother's case. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. New York City Mayor Eric Adams seems to be one step closer to
getting the criminal charges against him dismissed. That's because Paul Clement, the former US Solicitor General appointed by the judge to advise him on the dismissal motion, has recommended the case be permanently dismissed. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Robert Mints of Macarter and English. Bob. Clement wrote that if the charges weren't dismissed with prejudice, meaning they couldn't be brought again, they would hang like the proverbial sort
of damocles over Adams. But if you have a public official who's been charged with corruption and the chargers are being dropped for political reasons, why should you give him this free reign.
What I think what mister comment was getting at is that one of the reasons that the Southern District Prosecutors objected so strenuously to this dismissal is that they argue that in meetings with the Defense Council there was discussions
that amounted to essentially a quid pro quo. In other words, there were discussions about the mayor's ability to continue to cooperate with the Trump administration in its immigration enforcement policies, and whether or not the indictment and the trial that would be upcoming would interfere as his ability to do that, and in acknowledging that it would that obviously, any criminal trial of an elected official is going to take away
their attention and their time from carrying out their public duties, that that was a reason in order to dismiss the indictment at this time, the Southern District prosecutor that that was essentially a quid pro quot in agreement on the part of the mayor to support the Trump administration in exchange for a dismissal of the criminal charges, and the Department of Justice, I think was responding to that by saying, we're not asking for a dismissal that is permanent. We're
not asking to bar the prosecution forever. We're just saying it should be dismissed at this time until after the election. And that's why the Department of Justice was asking for
the dismissal without prejudice. But mister Clement said that the quid pro quot that was hanging over this whole dismissal was something that could only be eliminated if the dismissal was with prejudice, and that way, the argument that the mayor would be taking any actions in order to curry favor with the Trump administration would be removed because there would be no possibility that the Department of Justice could indict him down the road if you failed to cooperate
with the Trump administration's immigration policies.
I mean talk about a get out of jail free card for Adam because he was accused of agreeing to a quid pro quote. Now the whole case is going to be dropped against him. It doesn't seem like justice is being done.
Well, that's a great question, and I think a lot of people are very troubled by this whole scenario. Ultimately, mister Clement concluded that the judge's hands were tied, that he really had no ability to fight the dismissal. If the Department of Justice had decided, almost for whatever reason, to dismiss the case, the judge had no choice but to do that, but to follow through and to dismiss the case. And he even advised against an extensive judicial
investigation into the Department of Justice and actions. In other words, he didn't even think it was necessary for the judge to delve into the motivations behind the Department of Justice to seek the dismissal, or likewise, the motivation for the former Southern District prosecutors for refusing to follow that directive. Mister Clement wrote in his submission to the judge, when the publicly available information is sufficient to inform judicial decision making,
there are sound reasons to avoid further inquiries. So he basically concluded that nothing good could come of digging into this further, and that the judge did not have discretion here to refuse to dismiss the case, and there was really no reason to get into this dispute between the former Southern District prosecutors and the Department of Justice about who was right, who was wrong, who was insubordinate, and who was acting properly within ethical guidelines and who was
acting based upon political motivations.
Adams and his attorneys agreed to sign a paper that the charges could be brought against him again, so, in other words, that the charges were going to be dismissed without prejudice. But now his attorneys have come forward and said no, they wanted to be dismissed with prejudice. So they're going against what they promised the Justice Department.
Well, sure. What initially happened was the Department of Justice said, we'll dismiss the case against their clients without prejudice, and any defense lawyer is going to take that. They'd prefer to have it be dismissed with prejudice, but if they can only get a dismissal without prejudice, they'll take that
ruther than have the case go forward. What the Adams defense team thereafter argued was that in the fallout from this dismissal order, where the Southern District prosecutors had made comments about the strength of the case and where the Department of Justice had attacked the strength of the case, that all of that was highly prejudicial to their clients.
And now the situation had changed and there was no way for Mayor Adams to get a fair trial here, and that's why they were seeking dismissal with prejudice.
So now Judge Ho doesn't have to take Paul Clement's suggestion, right, he could decide something else.
Absolutely, Judge Ho was not legally bound to accept mister Clement's recommendation, but he did independently seek out his guidance, and it seems likely that he's going to follow the recommendation of mister Clement, certainly to the extent that he
ultimately dismisses the case with prejudice. And I think again that resolves the question of the Trump administration or the Department of Justice using this dismissal as sort of a cudgel hanging over the mayor's head to stay to the mayor, in so many words, if you don't follow our directive and if you don't cooperate with the immigration policies of his administration. There's always the possibility that this indictment comes back again, that it gets reinstated, and that you're once
again facing criminal charges. By dismissing the case with prejudice, that threat is essentially eliminated now.
A watchdog organization, Campaign for Accountability, is calling for an investigation into the acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Beauvet's order to dismiss the charges, citing potential violations of New York Attorney ethics rules and DOJ policies. But that complaint's been found with the Office of Professional Responsibility, which Bovey oversees.
As complicated and unprecedented. As this whole dispute is, I don't think it's ultimately going to be resolved in the world of ethics complaints. It's something that really goes beyond that and really palls into question what motivations and what considerations are appropriate for the Department of Justice to take into account when deciding whether to prosecute a case in the first place, or whether to dismiss an existing prosecution.
Bear in mind, the prosecutors do routinely engage in a quid pro quote in the sense that prosecutors will often turn to a defendant who's facing multiple charges and say, if you cooperate with us, we will recommend a lesser sentence to the court, or we will dismiss nine of
the ten charges against you. That is, in some sense a quid pro quo, and that you're saying that if you cooperate in the criminal investigation, which means provide evidence about other crimes about other individuals, agree to testify at the trial. In some cases it amounts to wearing a wire and recording conversations. That is a tool prosecutors used all the time. It is incredibly common and almost invariably happens in every criminal case where there is a cooperating witness.
That could be somebody who agrees to cooperate at the beginning of an investigation, or it could be somebody who only agrees to cooperate after they're facing criminal charges themselves. But the difference between what's happened here and that type of quid pro quo arrangement, if you want to call it, that is that the cooperation is limited to the ability of the defendant or the person who might be charged
to further the interests of the investigation itself. It's their ability to to help prosecutors make their case or expand their prosecution. What we're seeing here is a Department of Justice staying to a defendant that we are willing to trade away a criminal case, not because you confer the criminal investigation, but for some other political reason that advances
the ends of the administration. That's something we've really never seen before, and we're now going to have to see whether that becomes commonplace for the Department of Justice in handling political corruption prosecution.
Do you think Clement's recommendation was more about practicalities than about the law.
Ultimately, mister Clement's recommendation to the judge was really more practical than it was legal, in the sense that each side got something of a partial victory. The government will get its dismissal, albeit with prejudice. And those who were concerned about the threat that reindictment might mean for the man and how that might color his political decisions and how he serves his constituents as the mayor of New York going forward, whether or not to cooperate with the
Trump administration's immigration policies or not. They get a victory because that has been removed by the dismissal with prejudice. So no longer is there the continuing threat to reindict the mayor if he doesn't cooperate. So what mister Clment really did here is he told the judge number one, you've got no practical solution here but to follow the
Department of Justices requests that the case be dismissed. But in terms of how you effectuate that dismissal, we're going to do something that really gives each side a bit of victory. The government gets this dismissal. Those who are concerned about the quid pro core arrangement no longer has to worry about that because that threat has effectively been removed by the dismissal with prejudice.
This case got very complicated, very fast. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert mens I'm maccarter and English. In other legal news today, the new district attorney in Los Angeles is doing a one to eighty on his predecessor. He's not advocating for the resentencing of Eric and Lyle Menendez. The Menendez brothers have served more than thirty five years of a life sentence for the murder of their parents.
D A.
Nathan Hackman said he believes the Menendez brothers do not meet the threshold to be released from prison, and that they've lied numerous times about the case and the timeline leading up to their parents' murders.
While the Menendez brothers persist in telling these lies for the last over thirty years about their self defense defense and persist in insisting that they did not suborn any perjury or attempt to suborn perjury, then they do not meet the standards for Reed's sentencingke.
Hawkman also said the brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the community, but if they come clean, he'll reconsider his.
Position unequivocal sincere acknowledgments of all the lives they have told for the past over thirty years.
Family members of the brothers criticized Hawkmann's assertion that they don't meet the standards for resentencing Tomorrow. Goodall is a cousin.
They have always taken ownership of what they chose to do given the circumstances of what went on in their household as they grow up as a family.
We believe that they have served their time.
The resentencing hearing granted by the judge will go forward later in March. In addition to pursuing resentencing, the Menendez brothers have also submitted a clemency plea to California Governor Gavin Newsom. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, a courtroom showdown between Pirella Weinberg Partners and a group of former partners who were fired a decade ago. I'm
June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg. The courtrooms showdown between Parrella Weinberg Partners and a group of former partners who were fired a decade ago has shown the gulf between M and A bankers and restructuring bankers. Parrella Weinberg claims that Michael Kramer and three others violated their partnership agreement by soliciting most of its restructuring group to leave in twenty fifteen, and subsequently launched the firm of Dussera,
costing it tens of millions in lost fees. Kramer and his team claimed they were unjustly fired and denied sixty million dollars in with hell compensation. Joining me is Bloomberg legal reporter chrys Do Mesh tell us about Joseph Perella and Peter Weinberg. You described them as two Harvard Business School graduates who became Wall Street Royalty.
I don't think a lot of people are necessarily aware of, you know, how important some of these boutique investments are. You know, even though they don't have a real high profile, they have their hands in a lot of deals. They're well known, and you know, they just know a lot about Wall Street in terms of what's going on with business, who's making deals, you know, who's in trouble, that sort of thing. They're advising on M and A and restructuring.
You know, the two founders of the company are pretty legendary bankers. I mean, Joe Perella was he was head of of Morgan's Stanley's, you know, investment banking at one point, and Peter Weinberg was HEO Goldman Sachs. So these are
you know, these guys came from very large banks. But around two thousand and six they set up their own boutique kind of firm together that you know, and almost immediately they bought this firm, Kramer Capital, which is the firm of Mike Kramer, who they later fired in twenty fifteen, for allegedly starting, you know, conspiring to form his own with a bunch of bankers from Parola Weinberg, and that's what led to this trial.
Were these sort of two separate businesses within the firm.
Not really they were all partners, but you know, some partners were responsible for certain areas of the business and some were responsible for others. Mike Kramer was brought in surely as a restructuring banker really because he knew that business. He had done it at other places like cool Hand and Green Hill, and you know, he was he was
well known in that that niche kind of business. So in effect it was kind of a hedge in a lot of ways, because you know, there's the m and a business where you know, they consult companies on companies they're buying and acquisitions, and you know, everybody gets together and congratulates so other when it's done. But they also have on the other hand, these restructuring bankers who put the company's really in trouble. You know, they come along and they roll up their sleeves and they kind of
helped them along. So they are distinct pieces of the business. But you know, they all kind of are contributing to the same pot.
So Kramer when he testified, said that the restructuring team was a revenue engine that was subsidizing the M and A group.
Yeah, so they felt that in some of the lean times when M and A wasn't as big, you know, especially after the financial crisis and things like that, the restructuring group was bringing in lots of money and helping shore up the revenues in a way that the M and A wasn't bringing in. And I think the way that the restructuring group looked at it in a lot of ways that they were kind of scrappy entrepreneur like, you know, they had built up the business at a
small shop. They were willing to go in and get their hands dirty, and a lot of these kind of partners, you know, weren't driven by production. The results didn't necessarily line up with what, at least Kramer thought that they should. So he was always constantly trying to get the business to improve, trying to get more revenue in, trying to find new ways of getting business in. And he had a lot to.
Say, you know, I thought it was interesting that he talked about the different attitudes of the two groups, right.
I mean, you know, these are guys who go in when companies are in a lot of trouble, you know, talk frank to them. They're well respected for their ability to kind of counsel these companies through very troubled times. You know, things are very tense. It's you have to be able to kind of talk to these guys when
they're in that position. And you know, they had the former general counsel of Montanto come in and say he had hired them kind of exclusively to get access to Mike Kramer and his group, and he was pretty upset that they had gotten rid of them. So, you know, it's a very interesting relationship when it comes to the way that they do restructuring and how they speak to these companies because they're in big trouble when when they generally are there.
Did Kramer say they had different backgrounds?
I mean, that wasn't like the whole focus, but there was definitely a thread that you know, there were these kind of pedigreed bankers who had worked at these big places on Wall Street, you know, and didn't really come from this kind of entrepreneurial roll your sleeves up and kind of work with the company's kind of attitude That was definitely something that they felt like. Kramer went to
cal State Northridge. You know, he's he's well known at that school for being, you know, an unusual for going to Wall Street and being such a prominent deal maker. So I think there was just a little bit of tension between you know, what they did and you know, having these big names on the door and being in conflict with them.
Was Kramer unhappy with the amount of money that he was making, because apparently he made one hundred million dollars during his time at the firm, which was less than ten years.
What he said was he never asked for more money. He said he was not necessarily happy with his compensation. He felt like he should have been paid more. He clearly wanted to be a bigger part of the firm. He was at one point co head of the advisory business, but they took him out of several managerial positions because they kind of felt that his personality kind of graded
on others at the firm. But to his team, that personality was necessary for the way he did business and necessary to do restructuring and that kind of nitty gritty kind of corporate work.
What did Perella and Weinberg say when they were on the stand, So.
Weinberg was first. He was pretty matter of fact, he was very upset, you know, at learning that they had had a meeting at Kramer's house in January twenty fifteen. Pirella Weinberg says that meeting was ostensibly to form the new firm, to decide on, you know, how the revenue would be distributed in equity and that sort of thing. Kramer and the others testified that this was more of a gripe session just because they were all so unhappy
at the end of the year in twenty fourteen. So really what happened that meaning is kind of the heart of what the judge has to decide here. He didn't necessarily tip his hand, you know, you have to be careful about the way you interpret judges comments during a
trial or before they've put out an opinion. But he clearly said that he thought that Mike Kramer kind of had a greater duty as a partner and as head of this group to kind of avoid having meetings like that that at the very least the appearance of it was problematic is the word he used.
They fired him for cause what was the cause.
The cause was violating the solicitation the non solicitation covenants of his contract with the firm. He was not supposed to solicit any clients or any other employees of the firm. If he was fired for cause, he would have had garden leave, which would have taken, you know, probably up to a year or something like that. They say he was soliciting employees all the way back in October of twenty fourteen.
How many were fired with him.
So terminated for cause. There were three others, two partners and a managing director who had worked on the thing, all of whom went to his new firm eventually, and a bunch of managing directors quit right after they were terminated for cause, most of whom also went to his new firm. Parella is suing Essentially, they want to keep the deferred compensation and equity that was taken from them, but they also want damages above and beyond that. But
they also want punitive damages. But that does not seem to be something the judge is considering, given that he said a lot of this was of the firm' zone creation. The other side claims defamation interference with prospective employment prospects.
Is it just.
About this particular incident or does it show anything larger about you know, boutique investment banks.
And I think it kind of opens a window and kind of just you know, the turmoil that can take place, you know, when there are difficult you know, compensation conversations and conversations about you know, between partners and management about who's gonna run what. It doesn't really matter whether it's an investment a big investment bank or a boutique. You know, on Wall Street, you have big personalities. They clash and when they clash like that, things get tense and can
kind of break down a little bit. And this is like an extreme example of you know, you can see a ten year old fight that in terms of the amount of money here and you know, Wall Street, this is not this is not a huge chunk of change, right. I mean, we talk about a lot of money on Wall Street all the time. But what's most interesting about this is that these people are so upset with each other that they are willing to, you know, over a month without a jewelry. Ten years after the fact, still
their gripes on the stand. And you know whether or not one side wins or loses. I don't know, you know, I'm sure they will claim victory. But in the end, like this is, this is a feud, and this finally kind of gave them both sides. I mean, look, of course both sides are going to say they want to win the case. Of course they wouldn't win the case.
But in a lot of ways you could just see, you know that these both sides of this wanted to clear the air and at least, you know, get up in public and make their you know, make their side known.
Why did it take ten years to come to trial?
Well, that's a that's a story of New York State Court and a judge that there was another judge that was on it. There are a number of appellate rulings in the case. It can just take a long time for these cases to go to trial. And it would have gone to trial actually last year and kind of the last minute. The partners Kramer and all wanted a wanted a jury trial, and that eventually was shut down. So now it's just up to Judge Robert Reid.
How did they shoot down the jury trail? As far as the testimony over a month, what was the testimony that struck you the most.
You know, it was all very interesting. Mike Ramer's was probably the most informative of you know. Of course, Perrella will claim that he lied throughout the time on the stand that this was, you know, an effort to form a new firm. Mike consistently said, no, we were just unhappy. You know, we hadn't taken any of the real necessary steps to form a new firm, like setting up an LLC or any of the you know, kind of technical things that needed to be done. But there was clearly
moves being made of some sort. Whether or not they violated the four corners of their contract, you know, it's really goes as to whether or not they actually violated this clause or this provision, and that's that's a very difficult question that really has to be done with an analysis of the document.
And the trial ends with closing arguments on Friday, then it will be up to the judge. Thanks so much, Chris. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Chris dol Mesh, And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg