Starbucks Tops, Zynga's Loss Less Than Estimate

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause
  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

July 25 (Bloomberg) -- Julie Hyman and Dominic Chu reports on earnings from Starbucks, Zynga and Expedia on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)

Clearly, this is a very artful way the justice department and sec has decided to put sac out of business.

They're going after him by using an administrative court that the sec has the power to convene on the assumption that i fhef he is kicked out of the business, the business guys.

They're going after the business by having the justice department, which has standard of liability that enable them to go after a business, and that is a very rare case.

That is a two-pronged effort to put this business down.

The justice department is convinced that his firm engaged in illegal activities.

He is so well-lawyer ed they believe they cannot go direct -- go against him directly.

The justice department does believe there has been so much insider trading that they went to a grand jury and ask for an indictment.

That is not a conviction, that it's an indictment.

There are two courts that will decide on the future of sac.

However, this pressure, of this publicity, extensive exposure, everything they do, will have a life of its own and people will withdraw funds, as they have the the past, to the point where the only money in sac will be sac's own money, and that, too, will be at jeopardy after this case is worn down.

I am curious, this is something people have been talking about a lot with this indictment coming down, you mentioned he is too well-lawye yered, is that the only reason or is that the matter of the strength of its own merit?

I think it is part of both.

The justice department nor the sec want to lose this spirited the sec has lost too many cases recently.

A case like this is a really high-profile case.

Cohan and sex c have been front and center in terms of buying expensive homes and artwork.

They are really sticking it to the regulators and say and we are above it all come and they are calling for retribution.

It does not seem fair, but that is the way regulators look at things.

The higher profile come at the mall -- the more powerful the subject, the more anxious they are to get convictions.

Understood.

Very key to the point you just made, it does not look good when you spend $65 million on a painting the same week you also settle a previous fine.

Arthur levitt, former chairman of the sec.

Thank you for joining us today.

I want to bring in our panel of experts.

Doug burns, and as assistant u.s. attorney in the criminal division -- s erved as assistant u.s. attorney in the criminal division.

Why is it they are going after the firm when they think they have a good case and not going after the man?

The be a lawyer and give you both sides.

On one hand the government views this as a pervasive culture of corruption and insider-trading that has to be shut down.

On the other hand a bunch of people that could not make a case against the target that

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