Reporting on Mickelson Probe Too Aggressive: Bowe

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Richard Farley, a partner at Paul Hastings, and Michael Bowe, a partner at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, discuss the New York Times saying professional golfer Phil Mickelson isn’t the subject of a federal investigation into Clorox stock transactions. They speak with Trish Regan on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)

Or does he have to worry?

I think he does have to worry about that, but the larger question is, where is this coming from you, -- where is this coming from?

But it sounds like they got it wrong.

But not only did they get it wrong, but -- not only did they get it wrong, but others did as well.

These -- you would think you could rely upon to very record of all news outlets.

Do you think they had an agenda?

I think they would have two.

What do you think it could be?

I think the reporting was just to aggressive.

There were some factor that never supported the subtext of the facts that were made.

The day trade, walters is trading in their and the icon is in that.

But the suggestion that these somehow had -- these three were involved -- and i i agree with you, because i called carl icahn over the weekend and i spoke with him and he said, this is the first time i've heard of it.

He had to read in the paper.

My question is, why didn't they call carl, at least to get some kind of comment to know whether or not he had heard of these allegations.

He had never been contacted by the fed.

I don't know whether they did or not, but obviously if they had, there were other problems with the subjects -- subtext they were pitching.

If the theory was somehow carl icahn was leaking information, that does not make sense.

It is not in his interest to do that.

And you know well that he never lost -- launched a tender offer for the company.

He would've had to have launched a tender offer for them to have had him on anything.

Right, and clorox would had to have agreed to keep information, including a bit.

But that is the point, it is not in carl icahn's interest to leak the information.

What could be the agenda?

I get back to the fact that they lost the case in the southern district that morning and news of that leaked out in the afternoon.

It is quite possible that this was a smokescreen to keep that under wraps.

I think somehow there was a reporter who just went too far with it.

It looks to me, based on the reports about the fbi contact with mickelson, that tells me they were very aggressive in contacting him.

That tells me there is something serious they think they are investigating.

But with walters and clorox, and in dean, it looks like they are investigating trading by walters that somehow potentially intersects with mickelson and carl icahn.

And somehow that got spun into the billionaire, the golfer, and a gambler.

It makes such a good story.

I'm not sure i i that.

-- i'm not sure i buy that.

They both get the same story wrong by going too far?

I find that hard to believe.

I think they were told this information and then they walked the dog.

Them in investors are getting

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change