Welcome to NoMore Risk Better, a Credit Sites Podcast. Across the Global Strategy Team, we aim to make sense of the macro and the micro, highlighting opportunities and the risks facing the fixed income markets. As the macro makes headlines, we leverage our network of experts across fit solutions to better understand economic trends, rates, durations, geopolitical events, and how these factors impact corporates. At Credit Sites, we understand that credit investing comes down to picking winners to generate alpha and avoiding losers.
Our team over 100 analysts across the US, Europe, and Asia provide unmatched expertise and fundamental knowledge. In our weekly podcast, the strategy team offers a look at the conversations we have with our colleagues, including analysts, fellow strategists, economists, and leverage finance and market experts. If you want to know more so that you can risk better, you'll want to give this podcast a listen. Hello, everyone.
Welcome back to NoMore Risk Better, a Credit Sites Podcast. This is when he sees our Global Head of Strategy at Credit Sites. Today I have joining me, Mark Leitner, our head of special situations, legal research to talk through the action-packed court schedule that he is trying to keep track on. There's a lot of moving pieces.
We actually just spoke with Mark on our recent Global Market update at the beginning of September. Today is Monday, September 15th. We are recording this around 4.48 PM, still waiting on some new headlines to break, especially in the Cook Litigation Case. Mark, thank you so much for peeling your eyes away from watching the docket and joining me today.
Thanks, as always, it's a pleasure to be here. It is a pleasure to have you. Now, given that we're recording this, heading into the next FOMC meeting starts tomorrow, decision on Wednesday, we are largely expecting it to bring the first rate cut since last December, and perhaps more importantly, the cast of characters seems to have shifted a little bit. I'm wondering in the Wall Street Journal today that my rent is expected to be on the FOMC for this meeting.
Can you give us an update on whether Cook will be there and where that litigation stands? You're absolutely right. I heard that the Senate is going to vote on his confirmation tonight, but the board member that's really in the hot seat right now is Governor Lisa Cook. At this point, the story is well told.
President Trump and the folks in the administration identified a couple instances where a governor Cook allegedly made two mortgage applications and identified both of them as her primary mortgage, and the administration used that as a reason to terminate her from the Federal Reserve. She filed a lawsuit on Thursday, August 28, so just over two weeks ago at this point in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The court heard oral arguments literally the next day and then ordered briefing on a number of issues after that. Then the District Court at the end of last week entered an order basically reinstating her in the interim interim, what we call preliminary injunctive relief.
So pursuant to that court order, she is still a member of the Federal Reserve Board. Interestingly, and not surprisingly frankly, is that the government appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is the intermediate appellate court that sits over that trial court. There was briefing over the weekend. The last weeks were filed yesterday.
It's 4.45 as you noted on Monday, the date before the FOMC meeting. It's very possible that we'll have some kind of determination about whether that order is going to be stayed while the litigation continues or not. We're really waiting to hear. By the time this podcast is published, we may have a determination on that.
Well, that will be exciting if we have a determination on that by the time this podcast is published for sure. Now, when we're thinking about all of the moving pieces here, it is one Fed Governor, one case, but it seems like it has much further reaching impact. As you're thinking about it, and in your opinion, how is this case important in terms of the outlook for Fed independence in general, and perhaps when we're thinking about the composition of the FOMC in 2026? Well, it's definitely important.
There's no question that it's important. The question becomes, how important is it? Whatever ruling comes out of this have implications for future governors, including Jerome Powell and the like. In that respect, it's very important.
One thing that I do think the markets can take at least some solace in. I don't know how much, but at least some is that the administration going all the way back, frankly, to January and February of this year when they started to take all kinds of actions against heads of independent agencies has been very careful to effectively carve out the Federal Reserve from all those actions, at least at a time implicitly recognizing that the Federal Reserve was different than all of the other independent agencies. In some respects, that's a good thing. In fact, the government in the litigation and oral arguments was perfectly ready and willing to admit that they don't have the power to terminate members of the Reserve Board for policy disagreements.
That's a good thing. Then you look at what's going on here. I think most people who look at this with a straight face recognize that this is likely a pretext, and it's just designed to exert pressure on the members of the Fed. It's really kind of a mixed bag.
I definitely think it's important. It's going to telegraph and signal a momentum to the market. For example, her reinstatement is stayed for some reason. I think that's going to say a lot of things about the way the wind is going to go here.
Yeah, absolutely. I think that speaking to clients both in the US and internationally, people are really focused on the Fed. The Fed has been a setting hand in a lot of the recent market crises that I've been a strategist for and independence of the central bank is something that people bring up quite frequently. Of course, we look to recent movement in Turkey around monetary policy and inflation and central bank independence.
People are really reticent to say, are we going down a similar path? I think another thing that I have become much more aware of is just thinking about the composition of the FOMC going forward. I did not realize that all of those regional bank presidents' terms were up in 2026. Conventionally, they're generally kind of renominated.
Then the members of the Fed board of governors kind of stamped that nomination, Yairne, and historically, they've generally approved it. If we have a very different composition of the Fed in terms of thinking about political independence or lack thereof, what does that mean for the broader voting composition for the Fed in 2026? We're probably getting a little bit of help of ourselves here, given that we don't know where the Cook litigation is going to shake out, yeah, maybe we will in a few minutes, but it is just something to keep in mind and consider. Yeah, absolutely.
And one of the things that maybe people in the market don't think about, at least certainly appreciate it, I mean, not think about it on a daily basis, the FOMC is made up of 12 individuals. Seven of those individuals are members of the Federal Reserve Board and all seven of those are duly appointed by the president like Lisa Cook and Jerome Powell and others. But then there's five other members that are made up of presidents of the regional banks, including, I believe, the New York Fed president always has a seat on the board. So you've got these additional five people and they're not presidentially appointed, right?
And they are effectively put on the board with the blessing on the FOMC with the blessing of the rest of the board. And so if you have a composition of the board that now tilts towards the more conservative side and perhaps more loyalists towards the Trump camp, you could see a world where a litmus tests for those other positions may be agreeing to the policies that are espoused by the current administration. Yeah, absolutely. And I appreciate your clarity and the details around the composition of the voting members of FOMC very helpful.
I've ever told you my John Williams story, the president of the New York Fed. But no, I was thinking maybe you were talking about the famous music composer. No, no, I mean, also mad respect for that guy. But I was at a presentation once at which he was speaking and there was some mingling beforehand and he happened to be at the table where I was having a drink with Zach, our colleague.
And so we started chatting and I asked him, have you read any good books lately? And I think that I call him off guard. I think that most people are always asking about policy, markets and things like that. And so he didn't really have a response and Zach looked at me and goes, the beige book.
Nice. Nice. So that was when I proved myself a total nerd in front of the president of the New York Fed. And I no longer allowed at social events, which is probably for the best.
Oh, I doubt that. But all right. So now that we've rehashed what's going on at the Fed and Lisa Cook, I want to talk about tariffs, which I'm sure you are probably sick of talking about. It has been, you know, I think the top of mind topic for a lot of people this year.
And we have some recent news with the tariff Supreme Court as they recently granted certain the tariff litigation that challenges Trump's tariffs under IEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. All right. What's the current status for the timing? What's the procedure of this case?
Will we know something by the end of November, by the end of the year? Is Santa gonna bring us a reversal of tariffs? Yeah, it's a great topic. And you're right.
I have, you know, expended so many brain cells on this on this issue of litigation over the last six months. And the short answer is I think we're going to have a decision by end of the year or early next year at the latest, but in terms of the status of this litigation, so there are really two lawsuits that are the main focus of this litigation. And the first was a lawsuit by a group of importers and they filed a lawsuit in the Court of International Trade, the United States Court of International Trade, which is a court that sits here in Manhattan. It's a federal court.
Frankly, it's a court that most people have never heard of until this litigation. And I personally have not had a lot of experience with that court until this happened. But that court has made up of Article III judges. They're all appointed by presidents and the like.
And the panel that was decided to hear this case was two Republicans and one Democrat. And they heard this case on an expedited basis. And in a vote of three to zero, they held that the IEPA tariffs are unlawful. In other words, the statute under which the president is asserting authority to impose these tariffs does not authorize them.
And again, just to be clear, we're referring to what we call the trafficking tariffs, which is the justification for those at least is the fentanyl trade here in the United States, as well as the reciprocal tariffs, balance of payments, things like that, where the administration is imposing a 10% worldwide tariff and then they escalate up based on various reciprocal tariffs. So that's what we're talking about. And the Court of International Trade threw out those tariffs on the ground that it's not lawful. And they entered an order that basically threw out for all them importers, so not just the parties that brought the litigation before the court.
And now that litigation was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is the intermediate court that sits on top of that court. And just like the Court of International Trade, I'm guessing, unless you practice areas of like patent law, you probably also never heard of this court. But it's a federal court that sits in Washington, D.C. and it's currently made up of 11 judges.
And the court on its own initiative decided that it's going to hear the entire case as one panel. So 11 judges heard arguments on that case at the end of July. And again, we've written on this every step of the way. And we thought that that court would probably come out pretty strongly against the tariffs in light of what the lower court did in light of the arguments.
And sure enough, about a month later, they issued a decision, a 7-4 decision, concluding that the tariffs are not authorized under our UPUB. And as you can imagine, that creates all kinds of consternation for the administration, right they're going out and they're trying to broker tariff deals with everyone and trade deals and the like. And always, it's one of the hallmarks of this administration's economic policies, right. And so they're very upset.
In fact, interestingly, the administration has filed a number of pleadings. And when I said the administration, high-level officials in the administration, effectively articulating like a doomsday scenario if the courts ultimately throw the tariffs out. So putting aside whether that's true or not for a second, the administration after they lost immediately sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court of the United States. And they basically said, look, this is the most important thing going on in the economy right now.
We need you to get involved right away. And then in response, the importer said, yep, no problem. Let's get to the Supreme Court as fast as we can. So that's the case that the Supreme Court has decided to take.
In addition to that litigation, you can imagine there's a whole bunch of other cases that have been percolating in the lower courts on this issue. And there's another case in a similar posture that was consolidated with that case before the Supreme Court. So both of those cases have been consolidated before the Supreme Court. And the court is currently accepting briefs from the parties and will have arguments in the first week of November.
So in terms of Supreme Court speed, that's quite fast. The court generally doesn't move that quickly. But there are definitely some examples where they've done that, including in the TikTok litigation earlier this year. So then, so where do we go from there?
Right? So they're going to hear arguments in November. I suspect they're going to try and reach a decision absolutely as fast as they can, depending on how they rule and how, you know, if there's a sense and concurrences and like we're different judges have to write opinions. I think it's very possible that we'll have a decision by the end of the year.
So that's really exciting that there might be a decision by the end of the year. I always feel like the Supreme Court tends to move a bit slowly and we're always kind of just waiting and waiting. Also, given the timing of the oral arguments in the first week of November, I feel like illegal terror would make a really great Halloween costume for this year. So I'm going to have to put some thought into that.
Well, didn't you have a very clever finance costume? Like when you're, I was indeed a bear steepener a couple of years ago for Halloween. So I need to keep up my streak of I either go as a stressed out working mom, which is just me or something finance related. So I'm going to need to figure something out for sure.
I'm actually going to Harry Potter on Halloween this year. So I won't be dressing up, but I'll be in the spirit of these. Well, we appreciate that for sure. My daughter is a big Harry Potter fan, so she will appreciate that Halloween endeavor.
All right. With the Supreme Court, I guess we'll get back to work stuff. I'd love to continue to talk about Halloween now. This is the season for that.
What is the Supreme Court trying to answer in this case? Are they saying, yes, these tariffs are legal. No, they're not tariffs are not legal. Is that something more nuanced than that?
Because it does seem like the most recent opinion had some nuance with some split on the decision as well. Yeah. So the lower court, the seven to four decision that I mentioned earlier, you had seven judges conclude that the tariffs are illegal. And four of them said they're illegal, but we don't have to reach.
I'm sorry, three of them said they're illegal, but we don't have to reach the legal conclusion that they're illegal in all circumstances, right? They're just illegal in the circumstances of this case. An additional force said no under the statute, they're legal under all circumstances, but you've got a block of seven where they kind of split between, are they illegal in all circumstances or just in this case? And then the dissent said, you know, the statute authorizes tariffs and we'd have to send it back to the lower court to see if they're appropriate under these circumstances.
So that's where the court split. But the court granted, the Supreme Court granted review on two specific questions. And the first question is whether a Yippah allows tariffs at all. So that's a very clean, clear question.
And it appears that they're going to address that question head on, which is a good thing, because I think we all want some kind of clarity about, you know, if these tariffs are in effect lawful. But beyond that, they've said that they'll take somewhat of a nuanced question, which is if the statute, if I Yippah does in fact allow tariffs, does that statute violate something we call in law as the non-delegation doctrine? And I'll just briefly explain what that is. And that stands for the proposition that our Constitution assigns different branches of government, different responsibilities.
And under our Constitution, and this is like first principles from, you know, like grade school, the Congress has the power to tax and spend. So it's the Congress that gets to decide what, you know, the taxes are going to be, how much your income taxes are going to be, how much your import tariffs are going to be, so forth and so on. And there's a doctrine that allows Congress through legislation to assign some of its powers to the president, because it's too difficult and cumbersome or administratively difficult to actually legislate every single solitary nuance of any situation. So they assign it to the president to do that.
And so the question is whether this statute, if it in fact authorizes tariffs, is a bridge too far, it goes too far in allowing discretion for the administration to impose these tariffs. I mean, the importers are making the argument that the administration takes the position that it can impose tariffs on any amount for any reason, for any duration. And you know, that seems like almost like king-like powers, right? And so that's exactly what our framers of the Constitution didn't want when they set up the Constitution.
They wanted that specific power to rest in the hands of Congress and not the president. And so that's the secondary issue that the court is going to end up deciding. All right, so that's a big issue. Yeah, assuming again, if the statute is not going to be a big issue.
The statute authorizes that. And that's a big if. That's a big if. So why are you thinking in terms of kind of your base case outcome?
And so not related to that. We had our webinar in early September and we asked the audience whether the Supreme Court were ultimately overturned, the retaliatory and reciprocal tariffs. And almost 60% so more than half of our audience said either not likely or no chance indicating that they generally expected the Supreme Court to side with the Trump administration on the topic of tariffs. Did this result surprise you?
And is it different than your kind of base case expectation? Yeah, it did surprise me, but not terribly. And the reason it surprised me is because I happen to think that the tariffs are going to be overturned and we can talk about that in a minute. But it's not surprising in the sense that there's a lot of expectation or sentiment or narrative both in the markets as well as the country writ large that the Supreme Court, which is very conservative, it's the most conservative that it's been in decades frankly, has handed the administration and President Trump before he even became president a second time a number of or a series of significant wins.
And so it's entirely consistent with that narrative that the court would bend over backwards to do what the administration wants. So I think there's definitely that narrative that's out there. That being said, my view is that, and by the way, this is not just my view, Mark Leitner's view, there have been 15 judges, federal judges at different levels of the court system that have looked at this issue and 11 out of those 15 have decided that these tariffs are not lawful. A lot of smart people with a lot of smart law clerks and the like who have looked at this issue have overwhelmingly concluded that these tariffs are not authorized.
I believe that that's the right answer. And I think that the court will ultimately hold that. How the court ultimately splits maybe a different question, but I think that there's likely a majority that's going to find that the tariffs are legal. Yeah, I mean, I think that we can probably safely conclude there'll be at least one dissenting opinion.
I'll be very curious to read kind of the dissent in the rationale or maybe there won't be. No, this is going to go. You know, there are ways that judges can dissent without actually dissenting, right? You can you can dissent and say, I don't need to reach the merits because there were procedural issues below.
And so therefore, even though six members in the majority found that the court, you know, that the tariffs are legal, I don't need to reach that question because the lower court screwed up on some other issue, right? So that's a way that a judge could dissent, but not actually, you know, side with or against the administration. So I would just not be surprised if there's that kind of thing going on. Yeah, that's actually kind of my preferred strategy when I have tips with my husband is I dissent, but it's based out of procedural issue and we're just not going to address the actual merits of the question.
I love that. He loves that. He loves being married to someone who went to law school. It's his favorite thing.
All right. So let's say our audience is wrong. You are you mark Leitner are correct. So there's 11 other federal judges are correct and the Supreme Court does indeed overturn the tariffs.
Then what happens is the treasury on the hook for, you know, many billions of dollars that they have to immediately give back. What happens to all these trade agreements that we've negotiated? It is. Is it truly that just kind of like other countries can walk away and rip them up?
That part of the equation has been something that I've had a hard time kind of wrapping my mind around. Yeah. And I think that is, you know, at least right now as we stand at the great unknown about what's going on. And we get a lot of inbound on that issue frequently.
A number of people have written on this and have published thought pieces on the Internet that are quite thoughtful, frankly. And their reaction is we don't know yet. We're in clearly uncharted territories. But I would expect that if the tariffs are overruled or determined to be unlawful, that the lower courts will establish some kind of procedure for refunds related to that.
But that is going to be an administrative headache if it's not streamlined and done really well, right? And so that's something that we're going to cross that bridge in the future if we get there. But I would expect there to be some kind of some kind of administrative procedure to do that. You know, look, I mean, you've also heard of the news that there, you know, people have thrown around the ideas of trading these kinds of claims.
And you know, I've had a number of clients say that's all, you know, everyone's talking about that in the market and so forth and so on. So that's, you know, a potential possibility as well. Time will tell. We'll have better clarity in a couple months, perhaps.
Time will in detail. And I mean, what we do know is that Treasury has been collecting a lot from tariffs and, you know, thinking about treasury balance and their ability to refund these tariffs, that doesn't seem like it would necessarily move the needle in terms of kind of the fundamental health or the liquidity position of treasury. We have seen ratings agencies like S&P recently affirmed the US rating in part because tariff collections have been much higher than anticipated and that has helped with some of that incremental deficit spending from recent fiscal. So there is this kind of push and pull where I think a lot of importers, a lot of people operating small businesses would say, you know, actually tariffs going away would be really helpful for us.
But on the other hand, they have been a bit of a stop gap in terms of generating additional revenue, which given the size of the US budget deficit is pretty significant. And then, you know, when we think about bilateral trade agreements, you know, we had a series of trade agreements back in Trump 1.0 during the first administration. And I think there were some mixed takeaways on how much trading partners actually stood up to those trade agreements. And so irrespective of whether tariffs are able to be used under IIPA, I think there is a broader consideration around trade agreements and whether they are truly effective and whether terms and conditions of those agreements are actually fully executed.
But lots more questions than answers right now. Yeah, I mean, in my sense, and we've written on this and I'd be really curious to your thoughts that yeah, IIPA tariffs were generally, you know, a stick to get countries to the negotiating table, right? And so, you know, even if the administration at the end of the day, although they would never admit it publicly, thought there was substantial legal risk or in fact, were illegal, that was a risk that was worth taking because, you know, the administration had a short window of time to kind of do a shock and awe, renegotiation on a global scale. And so perhaps a lot of this litigation is simply designed to give them more time to, you know, get those agreements locked down.
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think that might be part of it. And it seems at this point that we have a lot of the agreements locked down or a lot of the major ones locked down, although it seems like details are still kind of few and far between on some of the big ones for sure. But what a time to be alive for sure.
And I guess I guess we'll pivot to another topic. And you mentioned King-like behavior. You just put together a report with our broader credit sites analyst team, shout out to the rest of the team who have been really on top of all of these topics. And it looked at Trump's Midas Touch.
So a report that reads really detailed all of the government intervention that we've seen into private enterprise this year, which has been quite significantly. There's been a really wide range that the current administration has inserted itself into business. You know, we've had the tariffs, we've had regulatory changes, we've had single companies being called out. What are the categories that you kind of put together for different buckets of intervention?
And are there examples that you think are really noteworthy? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the president, the executive branch has a lot of tools at their disposal in order to impact and intervene in private enterprise. And each administration, historically speaking, has, you know, done more or less in terms of doing that.
And this administration, and you know, the report that we put out last week, you know, we've observed our sense is and our clients are telling us that this administration is taking, I don't want to necessarily call it unprecedented, but certainly significant steps to intervene in private enterprise. And that intervention can come in many shapes or forms, right? You know, it could come from President Trump himself. There's all kinds of examples either on, you know, to social or in the bully pulpit of the office where he's calling out individual companies, individual executives of those companies.
So he's using that as a way to exert pressure in addition, the cabinet itself in, you know, various members have also exerted pressure on different companies for different reasons. And then you get down to that what I'll loosely refer to as the agency level. So there are a number of agencies within the federal government. They wield all kinds of power over private enterprise.
Just like just one of many examples would be the federal communications commission, right? Is dominated by Republicans. And they have tremendous power over the ongoings of the telecom companies and media companies and like so they yield tremendous amount of power and, you know, to further the administration schools. One thing that is happening daily really is the government is withholding funds that have been appropriated to different private enterprises, including private universities as well as public universities for reasons that, you know, expand the gamut, right?
And you've seen all kinds of litigation involving Harvard and Columbia and, you know, Pennsylvania and the like. And so that's a really powerful tool that the administration has at its disposal to impact behavior by withholding money. And there's all kinds of litigation related to that, you know, whether the president in fact has the power to withhold money, the Congress has expressly authorized the administration to spend. And that's a concept we know as impoundment.
And so that litigation issue is currently percolating in the lower courts. And again, like so many issues, I expect that or a similar issue to reach the Supreme Court in the non-citizen future. So that's a really interesting one. And then the last kind of broad category that I think of is outright litigation.
You know, the Department of Justice is the government's law firm, effectively. It's the largest law firm in the United States and it's made up of very smart people. There's been a huge exodus of people that have left the Department of Justice since this administration came into power, but a lot of people have come in and they are very smart individuals and they have a lot of power. And so when the administration wants to go after policies that it finds are inconsistent with its goals, like DEI, for example, they have the largest law firm in the United States at their disposal to go after that.
So there's all kinds of resources at the President's disposal, the administration's disposal, to effectuate its policy goals. Yeah, it's been really interesting to see all of these different categories of intervention. And then when we were putting together the report, I decided, you know, we need something to break up the wall of text from strategy and from you and from our analysts. And I put together some performance stats around some of these companies that have seen direct intervention.
And it was really wild how mixed it was. There were some companies that have really positively benefited from some of this intervention. You know, I'm thinking to the high yield media and telecom names that have really benefited from some deregulation and some other catalysts there. And then on the other side, there's been some companies that are lagging a little bit where there's maybe negative overhang or threat negative intervention that might potentially impact some of the different trading levels.
I think that really just highlights the type of environment we're in right now. You really have to be up to speed on all of these specific catalysts. And sometimes there's a lot of game three theory involved, but understanding what the government can do, how they can do it, what the impact is, is really important. And that brings me to the next question.
I'm sure that this varies a lot by the type of intervention that we're seeing from the administration. But in general, can governments just kind of carte blanched, step in and intervene in private businesses? That doesn't necessarily feel within the spirit of capitalism to me. Yeah, I mean, it certainly is not in the spirit of capitalism as we've experienced it for the last, you know, however many decades.
But it's certainly possible to the extent that it's illegal for the government to do that, right? And so the short answer is I think they most certainly can until a court tells them that they can't. They're not going to get a lot of pushback from the courts. So the short answer is, you know, of the tools that I just described to you, I think those are all perfectly legitimate tools, although they may feel a little awkward at this point because we haven't experienced them.
I don't think that it's necessarily unlawful as writ large. I mean, one of the things, and we've talked about this before, including in the webinar last week, and this is one of the things that I'm going to be most interested to see how it plays out over the next two to three years, as this administration winds down, is to what extent is government going to invest in private enterprise? There's one thing to dictate policy changes, whether through litigation or directives and and alike. But another is to what extent is the government, you know, interested or wants to take an interest in the great American companies?
And I know there's been a lot of talk about potential sovereign wealth funds. We recently took it into the United States government took an interest in, you know, Intel and the like, and there's all kinds of historical examples of this kind of thing. But if this is something that the administration wants to pursue, I think that could be very interesting to see how that all plays out. Yes, indeed, especially because it seems like the political life cycle keeps getting shorter and shorter, right?
People expect immediate results. We all have, you know, magical computer boxes that are fingertips that deliver us food and instantaneous answers. And so when we have these longer term things that take, you know, it takes a long time to build a semi conductor manufacturing plant somewhere or a data center or whatever it is, it's interesting to see how these things are changing and how we're thinking about kind of the long term consequences of things that may not actually be long term, but are, you know, in the medium term quite disruptive and at least give me something to talk to you about Mark. Absolutely.
Absolutely. All right. Well, we have wrapped up another riveting discussion of all things legal related as it relates to the corporate credit markets, tariffs, what's happening at the Supreme Court with that case, what's happening with the potential decision in the Lisa Cook case. I'm assuming you have it seen at the headline said I was just checking my lumber gap.
I didn't see anything come through. I haven't yet, but it's imminent, I think. Imminent. All right.
Imminent is always kind of an ominous word, but as always, Mark, our conversation has reaffirmed that in 2025 and into 2026, we should all be long lawyers. I will, I will maintain that stance and I will get to work on my illegal tariff Halloween costume for the year. I look forward to seeing it. Excellent.
All right. Thank you, Mark. Thank you everyone else for listening. If you ever have questions from your mark, you can find us on the credit sites.com website using the ask and analysts function or reach out to your credit sites sales representative.
Thanks everyone for listening. Credit sites, flame are all price references correspond to the data of this recording. This podcast should not be copied, distributed or reproduced in whole or in part. Neither credit sites and nor affiliates makes any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this podcast.
Credit sites is not providing investment legal, attracting or tax advice. It's not providing research or making any recommendations. Nor is credit sites offering or soliciting any transaction with respect to the purchase or sale of any security. The receipt by this listener of this podcast is not the giving of advice by credit sites for its affiliates.