Attorney General Martha Coakley

[0:00]" You said today this settlement is 457 million dollar settlement is not perfect. So tell us. Why you signed off on something that isn't perfect."

[0:14]" Focus everything else we always doing government is perfect yeah let me in your let me put in a different way there is no perfect solution to this and in the -- Many separates -- that -- I know people feel very emotional about this new and you leave with the Big Dig is Bostonians and people -- paying for it and you know the Big Dig -- become. That this symbol and the name for a lot of things that people have been frustrated about -- punch line it is and so I understand that and I I have known as we took on this problem which I inherited. And dread we better resolve it we're gonna do the best weekend it won't be perfect we'll take heat for I'm prepared for that and -- I welcome it. But you know this is is some of the folks is that this has been a mess for sixteen years. Not created by mean -- about you. We comment at a time where we say we've had a horrible death we have a problem with leaks. We've got federal investigations we've got state investigations that civil suits we -- all sat back like everybody Yeltsin said. Hey you know what this is to be different -- will continue to complain about what happened I thought we needed to try and resolve it so that's what we said about we have a lot of things we needed to do we had to get to the facts and that's what that's when he asked Paul weird to you cool wind with the grand jury -- investigation need you don't worry about where we're going afterwards just find out what happened who did what who's culpable. And then we'll make decisions about how to resolve but I think we did that in in by June we'd finished a grand jury investigation. You know. I said today that I believe we had sufficient evidence to indict under Massachusetts state law for manslaughter Bechtel. Parsons brinker -- is a separate company they work together as a joint venture closest city -- this project none of their separate corporations. They they be part of the same family Parsons known around Bechtel is a corporation Parsons bring Graf as corporation. They came together and operated as partners in a joint venture they shared expenses they share liability. And they you know when you see it it's. It's Bechtel slash park his finger off that was the entity not that it matters that much but for purposes of the Big Dig they -- in charge. And we believe we have evidence to indict them in the third company was powers you've mentioned in people now on they were the people who need the epoxy who delivered the -- It powers has been indicted on limited in what I can say but what I said today was that. When we told all three companies that we enough to indict. Bechtel Parsons -- came forward and said. We want to work with you we're ready to acknowledge some of our responsibility. We know there's going to be money involved and we're prepared to do other things that we can do in -- of of an indictment they want to be died. -- who does nobody wants to be indicted in so on. But in. Any case they -- and a person or corporation. On the are instances where certainly the federal government does we do less often on the state level that we were not focused on individuals and I think it's important because people mix up this idea that. -- the corporation's escaped criminal charges you know that they escaped a potential charge in Massachusetts that would have been a thousand dollar fine. That's what they were looking at for a manslaughter charge is at least in Massachusetts the federal government was pursuing other false claims act charges. What would happen to them that they were found guilty they would pay money how do we punish corporations how -- we provide deterrence you pay how to by the way. Companies change their behavior when they have to pay as a result of -- in cars are safer pajamas are safer you know this stand -- lawyer. And so we started with the idea that well we can indict everybody and we can you know say aren't we great as we've indicted everybody. And and what will that do for Massachusetts what will that do for. The family involved what will that do for pain for the weeks what will that do for solving the problems so we took a step back and said. Because particularly the companies and we're willing to do a lot of things so that we can resolve this because we know of were indicted in charge and we'll have to have civil suits and this would have been years of expense for everybody including the commonwealth what."

[4:21]" One of the -- bad publicity for them worldwide. There's a value to them not to be -- no question and they get the deep pockets is no question there's a value to them not to be indicted sued the you have to as the reverse question will what is the value to the commonwealth to indict them. To my mind not all that much is it. We get along criminal charge. They fight it and if they're found guilty they have to pay a thousand -- feels good that I assume as part of the of the finding restitution. Not -- any from nice is not necessarily enough for a corporation has not provided for in the statute. That did the restitution would the courts what is said in a criminal -- civil suits -- tried in the civil -- so now we start all over again we've -- multiple with the criminal conviction of course it would and -- pretty much -- no question. But now what we're talking about is damages ready get cash on the barrel in his thin and no booed him how much her -- is if we won the criminal conviction and we got the fine presumably the liability -- is there. The -- they were prepared to acknowledge for purposes of this liability so you don't have to. Bring the criminal charge get -- thousand dollar fine. And then go and have long hearings in for a master or jury or arbitration that they would appeal. I mean we spend an enormous amount of time looking at would -- is we could recover if we went to court and that's the thing people have to understand. Just because the Big Dig cost 1415 million dollars and because they think these corporations acted in a bad way. Doesn't mean that there were endless amounts of money available as a matter of -- to lessen these procedures we would have had on the criminal side out war on the -- side. We would've had to prove damages we intend to prove that. You know things they did cause this problem and one of the things that frankly is a problem with this project what this is imperfect is we don't know what this is going to cost going forward. We had done several. I'm looks at the leaks we know we have them we're not sure you know what's going to happen or not but frankly we went in before a court and said. You know our damages -- distant end and by the way your honor you know we don't know what's going to happen in the future so make belt I'll pay as another billion dollars. That's not how it works in a perfect world maybe we could but we can't do that he. And so we said we won enough money to reimburses for out of pocket it we want two things we want to enough money in the fund. That will gettin' dressed and can be used for the kinds of expenses that we have to do and willing -- because we know we have a faulty tunnel this isn't the product we bargained for its not what we wanted. It's got leaks."

[7:03]" Actual damages well with the actual damages is much much smaller than what the settlement lies the actual damages might have been. 10050 million and what we talked about -- was will win under false claims act in the civil case may be get -- troubled and it is maybe you don't. On May be -- gets to collect other kinds of consequential damages and you may know in this settlement for instance we're able to get for the city of Boston. Their overtime expenses for the MTA there were other small amounts that we were able to get because he could negotiating that we would never guarantee it trial and again remember DN. This is. You know how long it takes a case to go to the civil system this would've taken five or six more years. Years of appeal that Dell as a limited lawyers the cost for the commonwealth to do would have been enormous so all of those things factored into. What is it that although people may not be happy because they want to see a corporation charged criminally. What is it that will get the best results for the commonwealth for the federal government an Indy for the family and I want to talk about that and want to make sure listeners understand. We do not represent her she had excellent excellent lawyers they will proceed as they did with powers to meet and negotiate or to bring a civil suit. We believe and I think they would agree with us that many of the liability emissions that we got this company to agree to. Will assist them and that it would save them time and energy that they'll quoted."

[8:27]" Could have settled with the delays -- the justice Parsons civilly in advance of this if they have wanted to well I I'm not going to speak for that -- that I know frankly we've been pretty -- doesn't -- would prevent you know but but but there's going to say that they won't do it now and I think there there was some. Method to the madness -- in doing this thing in getting it done and then moving on to do it and I think that. You know again if we hit charged and then brought suits that that the other on actions wouldn't have either been tried to settle for much marked a longer well you know like him are concerned -- this case would you -- powers -- your part in in monster is extradited as fast as a New York they have settled and an NI am I am pleased by them but I don't speak for what the motivation is there isn't for these particular companies and they all. And I did -- and companies that make money that's what they do and when they make mistakes and they hurt people. They will change their behavior -- not going forward because they have to pay for."

[9:48]" Little guy and let me tell you this size was not what mattered a year we took a good look at what the different rules word that the parties played. And we decided we made a determination that both the behavior the actions in the omissions. Of powers. Given what they knew or should have known and given -- control of a particular product was substantially different in terms of culpability. And that's an allegation they are innocent till proven guilty but I I will you know this."

[11:50]" That I know it was say that they said that from the beginning and continues and they're entitled it's in their innocent till proven guilty. A I'm restrained as to what I consider -- and -- I'm not an hour here all I was is that there are hundreds of thousands of documents in this case there are pages of testimony you cannot go and take one paragraph out of a multi T page. Document that is -- about the cold will be you want in use it to act school play yourself it just I just disagree with here. -- their characterization of what that means indeed that that they therefore X opened himself but that you know that's that's going to be an issue -- and a trial."

[12:26]" Paragraph six was 75 which had thirty Attorney General Martha -- let's go right to the calls into. Brian and Reyna Brian welcome your WBZ radio can write an Attorney General Coakley."

[12:37]" I think you like questions you know I -- Portland meeting if -- the average contract to remind the court cost and what happened in the past. And who is you know great -- going after everything. -- contract as a person the job they're responsible collect five years for a year belabor. What happened to this when it comes to the exciting up right away went away five years -- the next five years and then make them pay it forward as a coach and that Sino."

[13:06]" Right now what you're arguing Brian is that as opposed that wrapping it up as quickly as. The authorities here in Massachusetts have they should have let this percolate for five years I guess the might be substantial limitation issues that that might go on as as time goes by the let's get the attorney general's response."

[13:22]" fair question and it -- but I but I think what you need to understand is that. Bit when the ceiling tile collapsed in 2006 were talking about panels that had been put in 56 years ago and through 1999. And we were dealing with in Massachusetts a very two protective statute of repose for these kinds of projects could you do want to put an end to something you shouldn't have an open ended in liability. But we. You know we -- do that an end and somebody asked me today well why don't you wait and see with the future problems aren't as it will wait a minute now we've got to draw a line in the -- someone say let's figure out. What the past costs are what's within the statute of limitations and is one of the reasons we ended in this. But also say let's get money in trust anelka is we don't know what we don't know we believe that there are lease and there are going to be extraordinary problems and that's what this money's there to pay for."

[14:24]" Yes Arafat and Dan thank you -- my call I get on that you know that I'm Patrick I'd be open up home in nineteen. In April and recruited them October. And they go to that pummeled I am petrified -- the time to go through that -- I don't know the water that comes."

[14:43]" Have you heard about a group 128 a lot Mary have you heard about route 128 the F without that okay. Went on that wait -- would you have the Attorney General do mean."

[14:56]" Well I think we should have some kind of a situation. We have everything under contract and signed by the night my -- denies this but -- fate of Massachusetts. -- we -- mutual. We insured as passengers and ties and writer and that this is Barry Barry -- played that night so. I'm sorry I mean these men who built and I think also that these men who have built these -- We should be very very responsible I think a money that being the operative but I mean that quality will happily in the tunnel -- how can you violent."

[15:40]" You cannot marry that's a great question we appreciate your observation is not going to put the Attorney General on the spot but I think that I think it's something to think about thanks very much -- quick question -- did you guys ever contemplated this agreement with."