shall i send for coffee? sorry i'm late.
are you sure?
alright, i thought we'd get together because there's a legal concept that has been getting some new attention recently, "tortious interference." if two people have an agreement, like a confidentiality agreement, and one of them breaks it because they are induced to do so by a 3rd party, the 3rd party can be sued for damages for interfering. hence, "tortious interference."
and "60 minutes'" verification is exact. and precise. and i don't think it would hurt to make sure you're right. on this one.
but one we have to check on, mike. i've retained outside counsel to do exactly that. on a segment, i might add, that's already rife with problems.
i'm told unusual promises were made to wigand.
and, i'm told there are questions as to our "star witness'" veracity.
our standards have to be higher than anyone else's, because we are the standard. for everyone else.
well, with tortious interference, i'm afraid. the greater the truth, the greater the damage.
they own the information he's disclosing. the truer it is, the greater the damage to them. if he lied, he didn't disclose their information. and the damages are smaller.
if this holds up, and it very well may not, mike. but, if it did. and we aired this segment? and cbs was sued by brown & williamson? i think we could be at grave risk.
well, at the end of the day. because of your segment. the brown & williamson tobacco company. could own cbs.
you know, i am sorry. but i'm due upstairs.
you're getting ahead of yourself. we're all in this together. we're all cbs. we'll find out soon. thank you, gentlemen.
mike.  mike.  mike.