Latest / Bloomberg Law / Steel Deal in Jeopardy & SBF's Ex-Girlfriend Sentencing

Transcript

Steel Deal in Jeopardy & SBF's Ex-Girlfriend Sentencing · Bloomberg Law

0:03
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:10
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree more with President Biden.
0:13
Speaker 2: US Steel should remain American owned, an American operator. It
0:18
Speaker 2: was no coincidence that, in a campaign blitz on Labor Day,
0:23
Speaker 2: Vice President Kamala Harris, courting union voters in the crucial
0:27
Speaker 2: battleground state of Pennsylvania, where US Steal is headquartered, announced
0:33
Speaker 2: her opposition to Nippon Steele's fourteen point one billion dollar
0:37
Speaker 2: takeover of the iconic American company, a deal that the
0:42
Speaker 2: United Steelworkers' Union also opposes. The proposed deal has been
0:47
Speaker 2: subject to a review by the Secretive Committee on Foreign
0:50
Speaker 2: Investment in the United States, or SYPHIUS, and President Biden
0:55
Speaker 2: plans to kill the deal as soon as Syphius formally
0:59
Speaker 2: recommends it be scrapped, according to Bloomberg's sources. Of course,
1:03
Speaker 2: Biden announced his opposition to the deal way back in
1:06
Speaker 2: March without any scifious recommendation, an unusual move. Several business groups,
1:13
Speaker 2: including the Chamber of Commerce, sent a letter to Treasury
1:17
Speaker 2: Secretary Janet Gellen today warning that the administration's national security
1:22
Speaker 2: review of the deal is being unduly influenced by political pressures. Quote.
1:29
Speaker 2: We feared that the Scifius process is being used to
1:32
Speaker 2: further political agendas that are outside the committee's purview, and
1:37
Speaker 2: both companies have suggested they could challenge Biden's decision in court.
1:43
Speaker 2: Joining me is Rick Sofield, a partner at Debauvois and
1:45
Speaker 2: Plimpton who was formerly the Justice Department. Scythia's representative, so
1:51
Speaker 2: tell us about Scyphius and how it operates.
1:54
Speaker 1: SIPPIUS is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States,
1:58
Speaker 1: which is an interagency body made up of representatives from
2:04
Speaker 1: various US federal government agencies. It includes agencies such as
2:09
Speaker 1: the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the Department
2:12
Speaker 1: of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security,
2:16
Speaker 1: and others. The chair of the committee is the Department
2:19
Speaker 1: of Treasury, so they host the meetings. Their job is
2:23
Speaker 1: to work with the rest of the committee to come
2:25
Speaker 1: to consensus on how to address national security concerns arising
2:31
Speaker 1: from foreign investment into US businesses.
2:34
Speaker 2: So when they make a decision, it's sort of an
2:37
Speaker 2: interagency decision.
2:39
Speaker 1: That's right, No single agency at on its own. The
2:43
Speaker 1: various members of the committee discuss potential outcomes and work
2:49
Speaker 1: together to come to the best possible resolution for a
2:54
Speaker 1: given transaction. The idea is, rather than have a single
2:57
Speaker 1: agency or a single individual making these important decisions, the
3:02
Speaker 1: government puts different people in the room from different backgrounds,
3:06
Speaker 1: with different institutional instersts, with different types of expertise, so
3:12
Speaker 1: that the committee is able to get a broad view
3:15
Speaker 1: from throughout the government as to how to address concerns.
3:19
Speaker 2: Now, in March, President Biden publicly said he opposed the
3:23
Speaker 2: sale of US steel to a foreign company before a
3:27
Speaker 2: final Siphius decision. Is that unusual?
3:30
Speaker 1: That's very unusual to my knowledge. President Biden's statement was
3:34
Speaker 1: made even before a filing had been made with Syphius,
3:38
Speaker 1: and that's not how the process ordinarily works. Ordinarily, a
3:42
Speaker 1: filing gets made to the committee by the parties. They
3:45
Speaker 1: usually do that together, and Sophius evaluates the transaction using
3:51
Speaker 1: what it calls a risk based analysis. And that risk
3:55
Speaker 1: based analysis looks at the threat posed by the foreignvestm,
4:00
Speaker 1: the vulnerability of the US business, and the consequences if
4:05
Speaker 1: the threat actor were to take advantage of vulnerable US business.
4:10
Speaker 1: And so looking at the threat, vulnerability and consequences altogether,
4:14
Speaker 1: Syphius comes up with its overall risk assessment and bases
4:18
Speaker 1: its recommendation to the president on that risk assessment. So
4:23
Speaker 1: back in March, to my knowledge, Cifius would not have
4:26
Speaker 1: completed a risk analysis, and so the President really wouldn't
4:30
Speaker 1: have had the benefit of that insight from Siphius in
4:34
Speaker 1: making his pronouncement. There there'd been no risk analysis, And
4:39
Speaker 1: to me, frankly, you know that creates potential litigation risk
4:43
Speaker 1: because parties to the Sifius process are entitled to due process,
4:47
Speaker 1: and it's hard to see where there would be adequate
4:50
Speaker 1: due process, which is to notice an opportunity to be heard,
4:54
Speaker 1: meaningfully heard on an issue. How they could have had
4:57
Speaker 1: due process if the President had already made it to
5:00
Speaker 1: decision before the committee had done its work and done
5:02
Speaker 1: its risk based analysis.
5:04
Speaker 2: So now, as first reported by Reuters, Syphius sent a
5:09
Speaker 2: letter to the companies in late August warning that the
5:13
Speaker 2: transaction raises national security concerns that can't be mitigated by
5:19
Speaker 2: asset sales or other measures. What can the companies do
5:23
Speaker 2: to change Sophius's mind or allay their concerns?
5:27
Speaker 1: So it sounds like what the company's got is what
5:30
Speaker 1: Ifius colloquially calls a rawls letter or a due process letter.
5:36
Speaker 1: This has become a pretty routine part of the Sipius
5:39
Speaker 1: process over the last decade or so. And really that
5:44
Speaker 1: letter the rationale Forcifius issuing a letter of that type
5:48
Speaker 1: guns from litigation involving company called Rolls that was building
5:54
Speaker 1: a wind farm in Oregon, and Syphius was concerned that
5:59
Speaker 1: the wind farm could be used to house listening devices
6:02
Speaker 1: that would spy on a naval training base near the
6:06
Speaker 1: wind farm, and so Syphius moved to block that transaction.
6:10
Speaker 1: The parties to that transaction suit and said that Sipius's
6:14
Speaker 1: decision was not based on due process and actually invited
6:17
Speaker 1: the court to review the president's determination. What the court
6:22
Speaker 1: did there is it reaffirmed congresses mandate in the Sifius
6:27
Speaker 1: Statute that courts should not stand in the shoes of
6:30
Speaker 1: the president and do their own national security assessment. And
6:34
Speaker 1: so the court didn't say that the president got the
6:36
Speaker 1: national security decision wrong. Instead, what it did is it said, hey, Siphius,
6:41
Speaker 1: you need to go back and check and make sure
6:43
Speaker 1: that you gave the parties adequate due process. You gave
6:46
Speaker 1: them all the information about what your concerns are and
6:50
Speaker 1: gave them an opportunity to be hurt on those concerns
6:54
Speaker 1: and to see if there could be some package of
6:57
Speaker 1: mitigation measures that would alley the security concerns short of
7:01
Speaker 1: a block. So that's what seems to be happening here
7:05
Speaker 1: is CIFUS is now communicated specifically what its national security
7:10
Speaker 1: concerns are. And I would assume what's happening now is
7:14
Speaker 1: the companies are, now that they understand what the concerns are,
7:18
Speaker 1: trying to convince the government that those concerns can be
7:21
Speaker 1: addressed in some way short of the President blocking the transaction,
7:27
Speaker 1: and that can involve providing written responses that can provide
7:31
Speaker 1: include providing the opportunity for face to face meetings with
7:35
Speaker 1: senior executives.
7:36
Speaker 3: And the like.
7:37
Speaker 1: And it's an opportunity now for the companies to try
7:40
Speaker 1: to convince Cyphius that there's a way to address the concerns.
7:46
Speaker 2: Nip On Steele sent a senior executive to Washington today
7:51
Speaker 2: tom with senior US officials to boost its case for
7:56
Speaker 2: the takeover of US Steel. According to Bloomberg sources, would
8:00
Speaker 2: you call that a last ditch effort to save the
8:03
Speaker 2: deal or just part of the process.
8:06
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, Ciphius is already said they have concerns,
8:08
Speaker 1: they don't think they can mitigate it, and so you know,
8:11
Speaker 1: normally in the process that doesn't necessarily mean the decisions done,
8:15
Speaker 1: but it's kind of hard to get them to change
8:17
Speaker 1: their mind if they've gotten this far. So you know,
8:21
Speaker 1: maybe you could call it a last ditch effort, but
8:23
Speaker 1: it is part of the process, right where Cifius gives
8:25
Speaker 1: a written description of the concerns and then the parties
8:28
Speaker 1: have discussions to try to address it.
8:30
Speaker 2: Talking about due process, a letter from Syphius apparently arrived
8:34
Speaker 2: on August thirty first. The companies were only given until
8:38
Speaker 2: September fourth to respond, and also the companies wrote to
8:42
Speaker 2: the panel asking to withdraw their submission, and Sophius ignored
8:47
Speaker 2: that are those indications that might go toward a lack
8:52
Speaker 2: of due process.
8:53
Speaker 1: They could Cities is usually pretty liberal about granting companies
8:58
Speaker 1: an opportunity to withdraw a filing and to refile it,
9:03
Speaker 1: to stretch the clock and continue discussions on whether a
9:08
Speaker 1: patch of mitigation measures can be constructed that would be
9:12
Speaker 1: adequate and appropriate to address the national security concerns. So
9:16
Speaker 1: it is abnormal in my view for Cifius to not
9:20
Speaker 1: allow the parties to withdraw. And that's especially true in
9:24
Speaker 1: that transaction like this, where the deal hasn't been completed.
9:29
Speaker 1: If we're in a situation where Syphius was reviewing a
9:32
Speaker 1: transaction that had already occurred, then the national security harm
9:37
Speaker 1: would be accruing every day, and Cyphius made choose to
9:41
Speaker 1: act quickly in that case to stop the national security
9:45
Speaker 1: harm from occurring. But here the transaction is not gone,
9:48
Speaker 1: and so it's odd to me that Cyphius wouldn't give
9:52
Speaker 1: the parties an opportunity to take the time to put
9:57
Speaker 1: together some meaningful proposals on how to drastic governments or
10:01
Speaker 1: risk concerns.
10:02
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I really understand what the national security
10:06
Speaker 2: concerns are, because US Steel has warned that if the
10:11
Speaker 2: deal doesn't go through, it could put thousands of jobs
10:14
Speaker 2: at risk and might force the company to relocate from Pittsburgh.
10:20
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I don't have the benefit of
10:23
Speaker 1: seeing the record, you know that's been assembled by Sciphius,
10:26
Speaker 1: and frankly, we never will have the benefit of seeing
10:29
Speaker 1: the full record. That's in part because if this is
10:32
Speaker 1: risk analysis, the threats, the vulnerabilities and the consequence that
10:36
Speaker 1: is posed by the transaction includes inputs from the intelligence community,
10:42
Speaker 1: and that goes towards the threat piece of that analysis.
10:45
Speaker 1: That threat variable and the way the intelligence community defines
10:49
Speaker 1: threat is the capability and intent of a foreign acquirer
10:54
Speaker 1: to harm US national security interests through a proposed transaction.
11:01
Speaker 1: And so what the intelligence community does. The National Intelligence
11:05
Speaker 1: Council coordinates the entire community that includes the FBI, the CIA,
11:11
Speaker 1: the NSA, the military intelligence agencies, the Department of Energies,
11:15
Speaker 1: Intelligence Agency, and others. It coordinates all those intelligence agencies,
11:20
Speaker 1: collects information from those various agencies, which includes very sensitive
11:24
Speaker 1: classified information that would just not be in the public
11:30
Speaker 1: regarding the foreign acquirer and potentially the transaction itself to
11:35
Speaker 1: the extent there was collection involving the transaction, and so
11:39
Speaker 1: all that information is put together by the National Intelligence
11:42
Speaker 1: Council and a document called the National Security Threat Assessment
11:46
Speaker 1: if it called it a NISTA for short. So that NIFTA,
11:49
Speaker 1: a highly classified document, is an important part of the
11:53
Speaker 1: record that the government is looking at and that would
11:56
Speaker 1: be referred to the President as part of a risk
11:58
Speaker 1: based analysis. So there may be something, you know, if
12:01
Speaker 1: we want to give Siphius the benefit of the doubt here,
12:03
Speaker 1: there may be something in that NESTA that indicates a
12:07
Speaker 1: threat that we just don't know about it. I'm hard
12:11
Speaker 1: pressed to think of what that could be without the
12:14
Speaker 1: benefit of having seen that type of document and that
12:18
Speaker 1: type of reporting. But to me, that could be the
12:21
Speaker 1: type of thing that the government could be relying on
12:25
Speaker 1: in determining that there is a national security risk here.
12:30
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
12:33
Speaker 2: this conversation with Rick Sofield. If the companies decide to
12:38
Speaker 2: sue Sciphius, does that open the committee up to problems?
12:42
Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg. Nippon Steele
12:47
Speaker 2: sent a senior executive to Washington today to boost its
12:52
Speaker 2: case for the fourteen point one billion dollar takeover of
12:55
Speaker 2: US Steel. According to Bloomberg sources, the Japanese steelmaker's bid
13:01
Speaker 2: to acquire its American counterpart is at risk of collapsing,
13:05
Speaker 2: with President Joe Biden set to block the merger deal
13:09
Speaker 2: as soon as recommendations from the Committee on Foreign Investment
13:12
Speaker 2: in the United States land on his desk. Despite that,
13:16
Speaker 2: Japan's top government spokesman and ruling party leadership contender Yoshi Masahayashi,
13:23
Speaker 2: expressed hope that the deal could go through in an
13:25
Speaker 2: interview with Bloomberg last week.
13:28
Speaker 3: It's still going on and that we don't know that
13:31
Speaker 3: lis out yet, So we really hope that even in
13:36
Speaker 3: this port Carrea, the both sides with a que who
13:42
Speaker 3: is the mutual benefit and the more free flow of
13:47
Speaker 3: the investment to each other.
13:50
Speaker 2: US deal has vowed to pursue all possible options under
13:54
Speaker 2: the law to ensure that the sale is completed. I've
13:57
Speaker 2: been talking to Rick Sofield apart nor a deb of
14:00
Speaker 2: was in Plimpton, who was formerly the Justice Department sifious
14:04
Speaker 2: representative and participated in the review of more than a
14:08
Speaker 2: thousand transactions. If the companies decide to challenge this in court,
14:14
Speaker 2: what are the risks to scifious in a proceeding like
14:17
Speaker 2: that With the elimination of the Chevron doctrine play a part.
14:21
Speaker 1: So this is a really interesting question. You know, Firstly,
14:24
Speaker 1: the Rawls case it kind of gave a guideline of
14:27
Speaker 1: how the court might think about due process, and so
14:31
Speaker 1: I think certainly here there could be some due process arguments,
14:34
Speaker 1: particularly in light of the fact that you know, the
14:38
Speaker 1: President put his thumb on the scale back in March
14:41
Speaker 1: before any record had been put together, and so I
14:45
Speaker 1: think that can really call into question whether or not
14:48
Speaker 1: there has been due process here. The decision might have
14:51
Speaker 1: been made before the transaction was even filed with the
14:54
Speaker 1: Scifius Committee, and so I think that can put the
14:57
Speaker 1: government in a very difficult position if due process arguments
15:00
Speaker 1: are raised in the courts now on the issue of
15:03
Speaker 1: what effect the overturning of Chevron deference might have. I
15:07
Speaker 1: do think this is a tougher argument, but maybe not
15:10
Speaker 1: an impossible one in today's environment. And that is, you know,
15:15
Speaker 1: Congress has said that the courts should not put themselves
15:19
Speaker 1: in the president's shoes and assess national security risk on
15:24
Speaker 1: their row, that the courts should defer to the president's
15:27
Speaker 1: authority in this space, and deference to the executive branch
15:31
Speaker 1: to the president on national security matters. It's a long
15:35
Speaker 1: standing president it's a long standing deference, and it's for
15:38
Speaker 1: good reason. Right the president has the benefit of inputs
15:40
Speaker 1: from the intelligence community that the courts just don't have,
15:44
Speaker 1: and so to kind of attack that long standing deference.
15:49
Speaker 1: I think that's an uphill battle. That said, though, you know,
15:53
Speaker 1: we have this trend that we're seeing in the courts
15:56
Speaker 1: away from giving deference, and so that could at the
16:00
Speaker 1: court's thinking here, particularly if we're in a circumstance where
16:05
Speaker 1: there's a really weak administrative record, where there are significant
16:10
Speaker 1: due process concerns, that could invite the court to go
16:14
Speaker 1: further than just pointing to due process fouls and to
16:18
Speaker 1: potentially somehow put guardrails around or curb the president's supreme
16:24
Speaker 1: authority to make national security determinations through the scifist process.
16:29
Speaker 2: That would be a first then right, absolutely be a first.
16:32
Speaker 1: But you know, there's a saying in legal circles that
16:35
Speaker 1: you've probably heard, which is bad facts make bad laws.
16:39
Speaker 1: If you've got bad facts, you've got a bad written record.
16:42
Speaker 1: You've got a record of sort of the decision maker
16:46
Speaker 1: making a decision months before the matter has even been
16:50
Speaker 1: put before him. And then you know, the supporting documentation
16:56
Speaker 1: is not convincing that the parties are not given an
17:00
Speaker 1: adequate time to prepare responses to the government's written concerns.
17:06
Speaker 1: And you have all these factors pointing to perhaps a
17:10
Speaker 1: precipitous decision by the government. You could be inviting the
17:14
Speaker 1: courts to take aggressive action, and so, yes, I think
17:18
Speaker 1: it would be novel for sure, and I think it
17:21
Speaker 1: would be a hard argument to make and win to
17:24
Speaker 1: challenge the president's national security determination. But I give the
17:28
Speaker 1: court a bad enough record, they just might do it.
17:31
Speaker 2: There's something else I'm curious about. So nip On Steel
17:34
Speaker 2: and US Steel have engaged in a nearly year long
17:39
Speaker 2: attempt to win the support of the United steel Workers,
17:43
Speaker 2: and today on a website Best Deal for American Steel
17:48
Speaker 2: dot Com, the two companies made their correspondence with the
17:52
Speaker 2: steel workers public in an effort to show how union
17:56
Speaker 2: leaders snubbed their efforts to negotiate an agreement. And the
18:01
Speaker 2: documents show, for example, that there were promises of no
18:06
Speaker 2: layoffs or plant idling or permanent closures, et cetera, et cetera,
18:12
Speaker 2: but the union remained firmly against it. And I'm wondering
18:16
Speaker 2: if it's unusual for companies to be dealing directly with
18:22
Speaker 2: the union like this before the deal is even finalized,
18:27
Speaker 2: or is that par for the course.
18:29
Speaker 1: So, I mean, what is par for the course is
18:32
Speaker 1: for the parties to a transaction to work with other
18:37
Speaker 1: interested parties to identify potential national security concerns and to
18:42
Speaker 1: craft mitigation measures designed to address them. The idea here
18:46
Speaker 1: would be that the parties want to get out in
18:48
Speaker 1: front of these concerns and when they file with the
18:51
Speaker 1: government and when they are engaged in this back and
18:54
Speaker 1: forth with the government. Where we are now, where the
18:56
Speaker 1: government has identified national security concerns, company doesn't necessarily want
19:01
Speaker 1: to be reactive. They want to have gotten their ducks
19:04
Speaker 1: in a row to be able to make the arguments
19:07
Speaker 1: to the government that their national security concerns can be addressed. So,
19:13
Speaker 1: you know, I can't say that I've seen it where
19:15
Speaker 1: there's been sort of discussions with a union and acquiescence
19:19
Speaker 1: from a union in order to get government approval. But
19:24
Speaker 1: to have other stakeholders who are involved and on board
19:29
Speaker 1: with a package of mitigation measures. That's consistent, right, That's
19:33
Speaker 1: with normal practice. Companies do this all the time, and
19:37
Speaker 1: it's part of just good management of vacifious process to
19:41
Speaker 1: have your ducts in a row and to be prepared
19:44
Speaker 1: to address any concerns that the government might raise.
19:47
Speaker 2: Let's say that companies do challenge it in court, how
19:50
Speaker 2: long would it take do you think to play out
19:52
Speaker 2: months longer than months.
19:55
Speaker 1: It can take months or years. There's no certainty, you know,
19:58
Speaker 1: when you get to this litigation state, and so it's
20:02
Speaker 1: really hard to say how long a litigation process would
20:05
Speaker 1: take the play out.
20:06
Speaker 2: And it's looking like litigation is the only possible answer
20:12
Speaker 2: for Nippon and US steal, especially since former President Donald
20:18
Speaker 2: Trump has also expressed opposition to the deal. So no
20:22
Speaker 2: matter who wins the election, the next president will oppose
20:26
Speaker 2: the deal. Thanks so much for joining me, Rick, that's
20:29
Speaker 2: Rick Sofield, a partner Debevoise and Plimpton. Coming up next
20:34
Speaker 2: on the Bloomberg Law Show. Sam bankman Fried's former girlfriend
20:38
Speaker 2: and the government's star witness against him, is asking a
20:42
Speaker 2: judge not to give her any jail time when she's
20:45
Speaker 2: sentenced this month. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
20:51
Speaker 2: Caroline Ellison was the star witness in the government's fraud
20:55
Speaker 2: case against her former boyfriend, the one time crypto wonder boy,
21:01
Speaker 2: Sam bankman Fried, and now she wants a get out
21:04
Speaker 2: of jail free card. The former Alameda Research Chief executive
21:09
Speaker 2: officer is pointing to her quote extraordinarily impactful cooperation in
21:15
Speaker 2: one of the country's biggest financial crime investigations to convince
21:19
Speaker 2: a judge to spare her from spending even a single
21:23
Speaker 2: day in prison. In a sentencing memo late Tuesday, Ellison's
21:27
Speaker 2: lawyers portrayed her as a talented woman caught under SBF
21:32
Speaker 2: spell as his on again, off again girlfriend who wound
21:36
Speaker 2: up helping him commit crimes. Quote. She regrets her role
21:40
Speaker 2: deeply and will carry shame and remorse to her grave.
21:44
Speaker 2: Joining me is Ava Benny Morrison, who covered the trial
21:48
Speaker 2: and has looked at this one hundred and fifty page
21:51
Speaker 2: sentencing memo. Ellison is trying to get away with no
21:56
Speaker 2: jail time at all. Tell us what argument she's using.
22:00
Speaker 4: Caroline Ellison filed a sentencing memo in court, essentially putting
22:05
Speaker 4: her case board for the judge to spare her from
22:07
Speaker 4: serving any prison time. She says that she was in
22:10
Speaker 4: a pretty unique and complicated situation with sex founder Sam
22:14
Speaker 4: Bankment Freed. They were in an on again, off again
22:17
Speaker 4: relationship and he was manipulative, very hot and cold with her,
22:22
Speaker 4: and she felt like she was forced into a position
22:25
Speaker 4: to help him with his crimes and she couldn't leave.
22:28
Speaker 4: She's asked the judge to take that into consideration, but
22:32
Speaker 4: most importantly taken to consideration the fact that she was
22:35
Speaker 4: the star witness of the government in its case against
22:37
Speaker 4: the Sambaateman breeds. As soon as STX collapsed in late
22:41
Speaker 4: twenty twenty two, she went back to the US. She
22:43
Speaker 4: met with several prosecutors and regulators problem everything that they
22:47
Speaker 4: wanted to know, even pointing them times that were committed
22:51
Speaker 4: by Sam Bakman Breed that they didn't know about. She's
22:53
Speaker 4: put all of these arguments forward just in a bit
22:56
Speaker 4: to try and convince the judge to just sentence her
22:58
Speaker 4: to supervis release memo.
23:00
Speaker 2: A lot of time was spent on her on again,
23:03
Speaker 2: off again relationship with Sam Bankman. Freed did that somehow
23:09
Speaker 2: give her a pass?
23:11
Speaker 4: It didn't form quite a central part of the senacinema,
23:14
Speaker 4: which was more than one hundred and fifty pages, and
23:17
Speaker 4: her lawyers went into pretty intimate details about what that
23:21
Speaker 4: relationship was like mols, what she felt about Sam and
23:26
Speaker 4: how he was treating her. She felt very isolated, she
23:29
Speaker 4: felt manipulated by him. She was trying to balance a
23:33
Speaker 4: romantic relationship and a professional relationship with the man who
23:36
Speaker 4: was her boss. Her boys said in this document that
23:40
Speaker 4: when she tried to leave Alameda, he would shower her
23:43
Speaker 4: with professional compliments, tell her that he loved her and
23:47
Speaker 4: that she was a key part of that operation and
23:50
Speaker 4: it couldn't possibly go on without her. So she sort
23:54
Speaker 4: of painted this picture of being stuck but at the
23:57
Speaker 4: same time really losing her moral compass being Sam Bankman
24:00
Speaker 4: Free to carry out his multi billion dollar Florida.
24:03
Speaker 2: That's year talking about details in the memo. Did they
24:07
Speaker 2: actually talk about her wanting to be invited to the
24:10
Speaker 2: met Gala in twenty twenty two?
24:13
Speaker 3: They did.
24:13
Speaker 4: Actually, they gave some examples of some sick dynamics between
24:18
Speaker 4: her and Sam Bankman Free. One example she gave was
24:21
Speaker 4: when Sam was invited to the Met Gala in twenty
24:25
Speaker 4: twenty two and Carolin was really excited about this, and
24:27
Speaker 4: she asked if she could go with him, and he
24:30
Speaker 4: said no and completely rebuffed her and said that he
24:33
Speaker 4: didn't want to be seen out in public with her.
24:35
Speaker 4: That's the version of events by her lawyers. They also
24:39
Speaker 4: said that she he never invited her to any of
24:42
Speaker 4: the kind of flashy crypto industry conferences that he would
24:46
Speaker 4: go to, and really went to great lengths to keep
24:50
Speaker 4: their relationship a secret.
24:51
Speaker 2: It sounds more like a novel to me than a
24:53
Speaker 2: sentencing memo. They also tried to distance her from this
24:59
Speaker 2: slavish life style, you know, portrayed her as someone who
25:02
Speaker 2: shopped at the gap and gave to charity and all
25:05
Speaker 2: this stuff. I mean, how did they try to portray her.
25:07
Speaker 2: She did make a lot of money, didn't.
25:09
Speaker 4: She Well, she was paid a pretty decent salary, and
25:12
Speaker 4: she said that she received bonuses, generous bonuses, in line
25:17
Speaker 4: with a lot of the other executives at FTX and
25:20
Speaker 4: Alimentar Research. But you're right, her lawyers really tried to
25:24
Speaker 4: portray her as someone who was humble, who wasn't interested
25:27
Speaker 4: in the finer things in life, just because she was
25:30
Speaker 4: a wealthy human being. They gave little besprinkles, little anecdotes
25:34
Speaker 4: throughout the sendencing memo from friends and family and former
25:37
Speaker 4: colleagues saying, you know, Caroline muft to shop at the gap.
25:41
Speaker 4: Her mum even mentioned that she had to buy her
25:44
Speaker 4: shoes because she was so disinterested in buying anything for
25:48
Speaker 4: herself when people couldn't even afford to eat around the world.
25:53
Speaker 4: So they really tried to distance her from some of
25:57
Speaker 4: the more extravagant and lavish elements that are associated with
26:02
Speaker 4: the crypto industry.
26:04
Speaker 2: They said that she's continued to suffer even after the
26:07
Speaker 2: trial house.
26:08
Speaker 4: So Caroline's boys have said that she was subject to intense,
26:12
Speaker 4: intense public scrutiny, that trolls online speculater about her whereabouts.
26:16
Speaker 4: When she went outside, she had to disguise herself, that
26:20
Speaker 4: she was pursued really heavily by the media. And they
26:24
Speaker 4: say that she has suffered more than other people that
26:27
Speaker 4: were employed at Sex and Alimeter, and this should be
26:31
Speaker 4: taken into account.
26:32
Speaker 2: She's been rendered effectively unemployable in the near term, according
26:37
Speaker 2: to the memo, And they also mentioned that she has
26:40
Speaker 2: a new boyfriend now she does, she has a.
26:42
Speaker 4: New partner, and her boys had asked to judge the
26:46
Speaker 4: permission to redact some of the more personal details in
26:50
Speaker 4: this centering memo relating to where she's living now and
26:53
Speaker 4: her partner to kind of protect her from that ongoing
26:57
Speaker 4: public attention. But yeah, she is working but as a volunteer,
27:01
Speaker 4: and her lawyers said that she's also chipping away on
27:03
Speaker 4: a couple of writing projects, fiction and even a mass textbook.
27:09
Speaker 2: I was surprised. The Probation Department recommended she served three
27:14
Speaker 2: years of supervised release, but no prison time.
27:17
Speaker 4: Yes, the Probation Department said that she should be spared
27:21
Speaker 4: any prison time. And look, it's not that unusual for
27:24
Speaker 4: cooperating witnesses to be spared from prison or serve a
27:29
Speaker 4: very very short sentence in a case like this. Caroline Ellison,
27:32
Speaker 4: along with two other former FDF executives, were really key
27:37
Speaker 4: to the government's case. They all turned up and testified
27:40
Speaker 4: against them. They've been freed at his trial in late
27:43
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three, which eventually led to his conviction and
27:46
Speaker 4: his prison term of twenty five years. So it'll be
27:49
Speaker 4: interesting to see what Judge Caplan does here and how
27:53
Speaker 4: he weighs up the value of Caroline's corporation and whether
27:57
Speaker 4: he finds that she should in fact spend at least
28:00
Speaker 4: a short period of time behind bars.
28:03
Speaker 2: And federal prosecutors haven't said yet what they'll ask for.
28:07
Speaker 4: No, we expect to hear from them in the next
28:10
Speaker 4: week or so, and they will put up their own
28:12
Speaker 4: recommendation for what they think would be an adequate punishment
28:17
Speaker 4: for Caroline. They could side with the Probation Department and say, yes,
28:21
Speaker 4: we don't think that she should do any time because
28:23
Speaker 4: she was so so valuable for us, or they could
28:26
Speaker 4: go outside of that and recommend some prison time. But
28:31
Speaker 4: ultimately it comes down to the judge and he will
28:34
Speaker 4: make the termination as to what he thinks to Caroline.
28:38
Speaker 2: To cop and the former FTX Digital Market's co chief
28:44
Speaker 2: who pled guilty but didn't cooperate, he was sentenced to
28:48
Speaker 2: seven and a half years in prison. I don't know
28:51
Speaker 2: if we can use that as an indication because he
28:53
Speaker 2: didn't cooperate, but seven and a half years is pretty substantial.
28:58
Speaker 4: Yes, absolutely, and was actually above the recommendation that the
29:03
Speaker 4: prosecutors had put forward and that the Probation Department had
29:06
Speaker 4: outlined as well. But Ryan Salin was a little bit
29:09
Speaker 4: of an outlier because he hadn't signed on to be
29:12
Speaker 4: a corporating witness and testify gets them statement free a trial,
29:16
Speaker 4: so he couldn't fall back on that and make that
29:19
Speaker 4: same argument that Caroline is making in that he helped
29:23
Speaker 4: the government put their case together and he was a
29:25
Speaker 4: key part of it. So I think that's part of
29:28
Speaker 4: the reason why he got such a big centers.
29:31
Speaker 2: And that was Judge Kaplan, who sentenced him as well,
29:33
Speaker 2: the same judge that's going to sentence Ellison.
29:36
Speaker 4: That's right.
29:37
Speaker 2: We will find out what he decides at her sentencing
29:41
Speaker 2: on September twenty fourth. I know you'll be there, Ava,
29:44
Speaker 2: Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg Legal Reporter Eva, Benny Morrison,
29:49
Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
29:51
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
29:54
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
29:58
Speaker 2: and at ww dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,
30:04
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
30:06
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
30:10
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg