carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i am carol massar. david: and i am david gura. carol: under armour's battle to be the sportswear king. david: all that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ david: i'm with the editor and chief of "bloomberg businessweek" ellen pollack. there was a supreme court decision that came down on immigration. deadlocked. this is now a sign of things to come. ellen: it was deadlocked 4-4. it goes back to the lower court.

the lower court has not scheduled hearings. what it does is leave many people in flux. david: a huge disappointment to the president. a signature achievement of his tenure thus far. where does things stand with that now, with his plan? ellen: it is all frozen at the moment. or a lot of it is frozen. taking it out of the political realm for a moment, for companies, it is a problem. they have employees who are here on visas and have immigration issues. they have trouble planning what to do with their talent. it is not just a social or political issue. it is a business issue as well. david: it is a business issue as well in a lot of global economic news. a number of pieces in the magazine about it, including one by editor-in-chief john

micklethwait. ellen: we have an entire section devoted to brexit. it is a huge deal. we have an interesting essay by john micklethwait, the editor in chief from bloomberg news who writes about it from his personal point of view, since he is british. and we have a really interesting story also on internal u.k. politics, which is a mess. david: talk about john's piece which kicks off with him remembering his gap year. he was asked about the political turmoil in the u.k. then. ellen: it is an incredibly charming story. he talks about meeting a guy named milton, who was asking him about the u.k. and asking him about the conditions in the u.k. and then tried to tell him how things would change under thatcher. it was only later he realized it was the eminent economist milton friedman, which is really a nice

story. but he turned out to be right about what he thought about what thatcher would bring in. david: it is a long essay. i don't mean to have you summarize all of it. what does john think about this vote? ellen: i think he thinks it is a setback. i think he thinks it is the end of classical liberalism that the u.k. has enjoyed. i think he thinks it is a mistake. he sort of takes us through the history of the change in the u.k. over time and what this means. it is a special perspective that we are happy to give. david: and liberalism, he notes, has not been entirely great for the u.k. ellen: right. he says it has been better for people on the upper end of the economic spectrum rather than people who are less fortunate. david: your economics editor looks at the referendum for

significance. peter coy takes a step back and says long-term, that may not be that big of an issue. ellen: peter says down the line, it may not be a total divorce. it will be something short of that. and he is a little more optimistic then some and basically says it is not over yet. david: i sat with peter coy. peter: if i were a brit, but what is done is done. i would have voted to remain. it is not all bad. it is not extremely bad. ,irst of all you have to think britain was already not the core of the european union. in the euro currency, which is supposed to be the be all and end all for the european union. all countries are supposed to be going in that direction. written had opted out from that. >> they kind of only had one

foot in the water. peter: right. the other thing they did not go into is the schengen agreement. it allows for no border controls within the area. and they said it no. they did and still do have free movement, as long as they are in the european union of member country people. but anybody from outside of the schengen area who gets in does not have immediate access to britain. so in those two ways, they are already out. and what we are talking about is another step back for them. to some further fringe of europe. >> one thing, as a plus for them -- as you wrote in your piece about david cameron, the prime minister pointed out that the u.k. economy is doing ok. peter: they had a buffer. the funny thing about it is if it is true their economy is pretty decent, why did they pull out? to me, it is about two things.

one is the fear of the big draws on their budget to finance and other problems. and then immigration, uncontrolled immigration. they worry about people from eastern europe coming in. so even though they could control the flow from, say, syria, they could not control the flow from, say, romania and poland and lithuania. so those two things. but if you think, if britain was a successful economy as you say, , how about the countries that do not have successful economies? or how about the countries like germany, which resemble britain in the sense that they are contributors to the eu. two differentese sets of country in the eu, both seeing the brexit as precedent for why they should stay in the eu.

or why they would not want to be part of the eu. i can see them making the argument that the uk's pretty well-positioned and the economy is pretty strong, but in the near term, there is so much uncertainty. we have heard about that a time since the vote. how much will that flag the economy? peter: it hit the stock market really hard. it is going to probably put a crimp on investment for some time to come. that is why a lot of people are predict the a recession for britain. goldman sachs, for example, is forecasting that now. but to me, that is not the big story. the bigger story is the longer-term impact. i mean, something like stepping out of the eu is not just one of these cyclical things for a story for a day or a week or a month. it could be in semipermanent new condition.

so if you really care about, can britain and the eu find a new modus vivendi, where they may not be as tightly linked as before but still manage to trade. and have cross-border investment. carol: it is tricky. other members of the eu who may be questioning, if the eu makes it too easy for the u.k. to kind of be out of the european union but still have some liberties, it may make the other nations more inclined to leave as well. peter: it is true. thatis interesting is germans have been surprisingly open to cutting some type of deal with the brits. german industrials see britain as a big export market. they do not want to give that up

and so they may be putting that as their number one priority and worrying somewhat less on the long-term repercussions. carol: up next, another scandal in britain. its biggest insider trading case in history. david: and the doctors allegedly bilking the u.s. out of more than $100 billion. carroll: and what may be the ok'd's biggest scientific breakthrough. david: all that and more ahead n "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ david: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i am david gura. carol: i am carol massar. you can also find us on sirius fm at 119. david: in this week's features

section, an investigation into the uk's biggest insider-trading case. carol: i spoke to a reporter. suzi: the u.k. regulator had not prosecuted anyone criminally prior to 2009. insider trading was what they grabbed on to the show that they were a tough prosecutor, and that they were looking at institutions. this is one of the first investigations they opened in 2007. it took a while to come to fruition because of various judicial court issues and legal aid issues, but this is their landmark case. around seven people arrested in 2010. in a series of raids that really took the city by surprise. this had never happened before. a number of these people were caught up in those raids. the recent outcome is what we have seen. two convictions, three

acquittals, a mixed result. carol: going through your story, i felt like you needed an organizational chart to understand how it played out. there was one man who was interesting was a man who went by the nickname of "fatty" or "mad punter." talk to us about him. suzi: iraj parvizi was a larger-than-life guy. what we saw in this case was a real multi-crew of players. you had the bankers who were from prestigious firms, used to working m&a deals. dealing with established ceos. then you have this underbelly of financers who were cutting their teeth on sort of "have you heard this, have you heard that," and placing huge spreads -- effectively professional gamblers who were using stocks and shares as another outlet of what they do. iraj parvizi describes himself as a professional gambler. he bent on horses, played poker.

for him, stocks and shares was another way to gamble. carol: and he was quite a character in the courtroom. suzi: absolutely. he has this fascinating history. he is the son of an iranian diplomat. after the persian revolution, he was in england. he dropped out of school and started working dead end jobs. and a chance meeting put them in the business world, getting a sense of what it was to make real money. from there, he became a self-made man. opening restaurants, boutiques, buying thoroughbred horses, to become this huge larger-than-life character. carol: the u.s. government is accusing hundreds of nurses and doctors out of scamming the government from billions. peter: this was the annual takedown, as they call it, by the department of justice and the office of inspector general.

every year, they save up some of the health care fraud investigations they have been arking on and a time them for big june smash. this year was their biggest yet by far. they are getting more aggressive. there is more money being spent on health care fraud investigations. they ranged all over the country. i think there were about 30 states involved. i think there are about 37 different judicial jurisdictions where cases have been filed. these are doctors, nurses, pharmacy executives. there is a lot of compound pain cream, pharmacy makers involved there and pharmacy companies have been involved in terms of investigating fraud. it ran the gamut. david: this is an annual event. things were different this year. we have seen a policy shift. you write about that. what has changed? peter: last september, the department of justice issued guidance to all of their

lawyers, saying no more deals with individuals in investigations of large corporate fraud. or even small corporate fraud. they will not make a deal that says ok, the company may have committed medicare fraud, you may have been writing prescriptions or housing nursing home patients or doing unnecessary things, bilking taxpayers for money, and letting off the executives or doctors or individuals culpable. in the past, that ability for so prosecutors to make deals in , these kinds of investigations led to a lot of settlements, and it was helpful. it provided leverage for the government to say, ok, we are going to let your seo walk, let the doctors want. were may be evidence they involved, but you pay us x

million dollars and agree to some sort of corporate compliance in the future, and no one will be charged. well, the department of justice announced that will no longer be the case. now it takes special permission from washington to do a deal that lets an executive or anyone else walk and just hold the corporation liable. they want to see individuals in the dock for medicare fraud. david: up next, under armour reinvented its supply chain, and baltimore says "thank you." carol: and how to spend happy hour. david: that is ahead on bloomberg is this week." ♪

carol: welcome back. i am carol massar. david: i am david gura. carol: in this week's features section, how under armour is changing its supply chain. david: in transforming its hometown of baltimore in the process. carol: we spoke to reporter rachel monroe.

rachel: they are building a new club in baltimore, which is the heart of their new headquarters, which is a huge, new neighborhood that kevin plank is essentially building from scratc it is part of a 20 year plan to really re-shape the company. and it reshape the city of baltimore at the same time. david: talk a bit about the growth the company has seen the last two decades. it has gone from kevin plank literally driving up and down the east coast to a really big enterprise. rachel: i think he said he put 100,000 miles on his car that year. firstjust running it out of his grandmother's basement. at this point, under armour has taken over adidas, so they are the second biggest athletic wear company in the u.s. they are projected -- they had $4 billion in revenue last year. it is growing every year. breathing down nike's neck. carol: talk to us about kevin plank. he is the force behind this.

free competitive spirit i think it is safe to say. he won't say, i think no one at the company will say "nike," but he is looking to reinvent the supply chain. rachel: he is very passionate about the idea of how can he do things better. so that was the idea behind the company from the beginning. making a better shirt rather that they and the soggy sweats football players were sweating in. he would do that with local to local manufacturing. the idea was to revamp products to bring in more technology. so the production moved more close to the point of sale, rather than having an 18 month supply chain and shipping things back and forth across the ocean. david: he is opening a innovation center in baltimore, where under armour was based. he is a guy with a lot of affection for that place. you had an amusing anecdote in the piece about a call he makes to network news executives. kind of amazing.

rachel: he was watching the news one morning and realized that when they showed the weather on the "today" show or something like that, they were showing new york, d.c., philadelphia, but not baltimore. and he was like, my city needs to be there. to docalled up and said whatever they had to do to get baltimore on the weather. he is always thinking like that. always thinking about the brand. not only of his company but the city where the company is based. they are very much and wind for him. -- they are very much and twined for him. carol: quickly, the company has been around 20 years. is this a step for the next 20 years in the company? rachel: yes, i think they are thinking about how they can beat nike. and they are thinking big. carol: in this week's etc. section, we got a handy guide to happy hour areas. bret: there are a ton of things you can do with your coworkers, your family, by yourself. if you give it a little bit of thought, you can plan some

pretty fun stuff. i mean there are concert series , all over the country. there is a great one in brooklyn and a great one in millennium park, actually in chicago as well. sipping events of you want to have a little alcohol. you can go to houston and watch 250,000 bats fly. it is something different, something to switch up during the work week. which, as you know, we can spend so much time. david: and the happy hour can often lead to the work dinner, which usually takes place at the restaurant you probably would not elect to go to on your own. you are sitting outside as well. bret: right. when entertaining clients, you go to the steakhouse, it is what the client wants. fine. but we previewed five restaurants that are known for al fresco dining. if you have to entertain clients, there are plenty of places to do it outside.

david: still ahead, happy hours alcohol. carol: and the gene-editing company and their scientific breakthrough. we will talk about that next. ♪

♪ >> welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." carol: we are coming in from inside the magazine and others. david: still ahead, the real cost of donald trump rallies to taxpayers. kickstarter gets creative. a scientific breakthrough. carol: all of that is ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ david: we are with the policy

editor. there are so many must-reads. let's start in the finance section. big news a few months ago about saudi arabia going public. there were plenty of people with a keen interest in how that is going to happen. and when it will happen. >> and many of them are investment bankers because the whole issue for them is if it's passed investment banking around the world not having the strongest of years, so saudi arabia is talking about selling assets. and the possible ipo, which is valued at trillions of dollars. saramco. so for investment banks, there is a whole lot of work to be done. and the whole idea of the crown prince who is a very important leader, is he wants to create the world's largest fund, they will be doing that with investment. you have a lot of bankers visiting.

david: going in and out, i am sure. in the brexit section, you look at where financial firms might go if they leave london. a lot of banks are saying now that the united kingdom is exiting, they might be able to areas. other where could they go. dublin is one of them. a place for taxes are more favorable. ellen: all of those bankers working in the city can speak the same language in dublin. that is a big plus. there is frankfurt, which is a big financial capital and it is important. that is another option. david: negative marks for not having a very fun nightlife. ellen: it is no berlin. frankfurt is not known for its nightlife. david: paris is a city that is also being floated. there are people in these cities

that they could actually recruit some of these banks. ellen: it's a silver lining, but not for the u.k. david: amsterdam? ellen: amsterdam is a short flight away from london. luxembourg as well. it's a short flight away. it is convenient to city hop in europe and the food is great. and there are all of these cities that are willing to take advantage of what could be a big vacancy. david: let's talk about the features section. on a new way of sort of changing the way that genes work. ellen: it's a huge breakthrough. it involves using the way the body, or genes, naturally attack viruses and snip them out. it turns out, and i am sympathizing this a lot -- and i am simplifying this a lot, when you combine it with certain proteins, you can program this function to trim out pieces of dna that are irregular and put

the dna back together or stitch it with another piece of dna. it uses a guiding piece of rna. it's really complicated. david: we talked with the writer of that piece. >> it could revolutionize everything. it could be as big a deal as the transistor was decades ago. it is a foundational technology, a process that bacteria used to fight off viruses. but now scientists believe they can edit genes easily had cheaply. and we have been trying to edit genes for years. you know about the genome. you know about gene editing and gene therapy. but crisper takes it to another level. there are hobbyists laying around with this in their homes and it's like copy and paste on a word processor. carol: bring back the woolly mammoth, right? stuff like this? no, but there are some really applications in terms of what

can be done. you write about it as the discovery of the century. but there are some key players, so i guess, who gets the credit? and who gets, i guess the monitor we words? david: which would be sizable. robert: investors are not wasting any time. they are putting money in various startups. and the two scientists competing over the patent, they are behind startups as well. and so you have got not just scientists, that businesses behind the scientists, and then investors behind the businesses all of whom are placing bets on who will end up with the patent. david: is it about the money? or if it will be such a huge thing to harness the science behind it? the pride that will come with that. scientistset both this weekend. i sat down with them. these are very nice people. they are literally on the other side of the country. i think all being things equal,

the they like each other, too. carol: they each lay claim to it. right? robert: exactly. dowd, long story short, she found a way to apply this thing that existed in bacteria and make it something that you can manipulate crazy easily. and he argued that he was able to do it with the human cell. so one person says they have the building luck ford and the other person says they put the blocks in the right order. it is really up to the u.s. patent office to figure it out. and the secret there is, they don't really care who invented it. they care who files first and he filed first. but he filed an expedited one. it gets thornier and thornier. it's technology and patent law in the same story. it is a heavy lift. but it is fun. david: when did things become acrimonious? for a time they were working for the same enterprise.

robert: they were part of the dream team of many different -- researchers that consulted. the company still exists now, with a $100 million ipo. the second he got the patent, she left that company and helped found a therapeutic company, a competing company right down the road in kendall square in cambridge. so they are civil. they see each other at conferences, but they are competing for a patent. and they are behind businesses that are competing for investment. carol: couldn't they share? robert: they might. the nobel committee typically only gives out to three people. there are other names in the mix. so who knows what they will do. but in terms of the patent, it is often how it results itself with arrangements. that may happen or it may not.

in april, they filed in court saying they have talked about settling and decided not to. so they are both going to let it ride for now. david: looking at the possible applications going forward, it's not worth thinking about the potential ethical implications of what you could do with this. where are we in terms of development of this technology. how soon can it be used for treatment or to treat diseases? robert: there has been nothing close to human trials. sean parker is funding a nonprofit one. through the university of pennsylvania, i think. where they are going to try to do human trials and cure one particular disease. that has not been cleared by the fda. things are moving in that direction in terms of working with humans, but nobody has actually tried it with the human body yet. david: why donald trump's rallies are so expensive to taxpayers. >> and why airlines are trying to recruit pilots. david: all of that and had on bloomberg businessweek.

♪

♪ david: welcome back. carol: you can find us on radio on channel 119, and in new york. david: the politics and policy section, the real cost of donald trump's rallies. carol: we spoke to reporter, kate smith. kate: the rallies you see, they are costing quite a bit of money. and more so than they ever really have. right? so donald trump is having big rallies that are costing tons of police overtime, additional personnel, and security. all sorts of extra costs associated with those.

david: who is shouldering that cost right now? it is the taxpayers? it's not the campaign? kate: i talked to 50 different towns about their experiences hosting trumpet and only one of them said they had actually been reimbursed by the donald trump campaign. they got a check a couple of days prior to me calling them. he said he had to do a double take when he saw the check in the mail. everyone had either not submitted a reimbursement because campaigns actually have no obligation to reimburse a town for the cost. and then the other ones that had submitted reimbursements just haven't gotten anything at. carol: why hasn't this issue come up before? kate: it's not the first political campaign. it has not been an issue for a couple of different reasons, just the nature of the rallies, the mood. very different than what we've seen and prior election cycles. also, when you compare hillary to donald trump in this election cycle, the way they go about

these rallies are completely different. and this is one thing i found fascinating when i was researching this piece. and that is, multiple towns have kind of talked to me about the process. the campaign will call you. it will be a couple of days prior. that's no exaggeration. for the level of security required, they have to do this in two days. let alone, they actually run a town and they have other duties. carol: they are responsible for doing this. they don't really have a choice. kate: and the secret service. and what would happen is hillary , would come in. her campaign will come in and say we will be visiting you on saturday and it's wednesday. we would like a venue of 200 people. in they will be like, ok maybe the veterans hall or something like that. they distribute 300 tickets. assuming a lot of people will not come. so the donald trump campaign, from what i am hearing, the staffers will call and say we are visiting.

what is your single biggest venue in your town? they say maybe the high school, it fits 1800 people. so then they distribute , unlimited tickets and there is no cap. and so what will happen is, they in one town distributed 6000 tickets to an event that could hold 1800 people. it is just an amazing campaign engineering where you have now thousands of people who have driven who knows how long to get physicallyhey are put it right next to all of these anti-trump protesters. so of course you will have optics of all the people trying to get into the rally against angry protesters. it is so obvious. you have a lot of extra police needed to handle that situation. whereas, again with the clinton campaign at the veterans hall, everyone got in.

carol: right. david: i wonder what the donald trump campaign said about this. keeping in mind what you just said, it could be an easy argument to make my why would we be on the hook for this but there are anti-protesters there playing a part, wreaking some of the havoc? is not theirse, it fault, right? when i reached out to the donald trump campaign, the campaign is responsible for the security inside the venue. physically inside the four walls of the venue. they have to handle all of that and pay for the venue. which, i mean, it isn't that expensive. everything outside come up or -- outside, or the campaign laws in the u.s., it is the responsibility of the town. there is a process by which you can submit however much it costs. the campaigns are under no obligation to do so. carol: in the companies and industries section, a dilemma facing airlines. david: there is a pilot shortage. we spoke to a reporter.

mary: currently they are fine. in terms of the number of pilots available, it is more the regional industry that is being hit by the shortage of pilots. what is of concern is the forecast that in four years the major airlines which are carriers like united and delta and southwest will start feeling , the shortage of pilots and by 2026, the shortage will reach as high as 15,000 pilots. david: what happened, this used to be seen as a good job. you would sign onto it, you could be making six figures in a few years and by the end of your career making $250,000 or $300,000. what changed? mary: one thing was the change in flight hours. that is before you could become a first officer. it was increased six-fold. it is hard to get that flight time and expensive. before that, there was a downturn in the industry after 9/11. there were bankruptcies and mergers.

for many years, the major airlines weren't hiring very many people. and you had people who look at the career and said i know this guy who was a first officer at american. i don't want to go into that job and those things started to combine and made the career a lot less attractive than it was at one time. carol: i mean, the younger generation, are they even interested in being pilots? mary: they have done studies. they show that only 60% of the kids who initially think they want to go into being a pilot as a career, only 60% of them if they survey them a few years later say they want to stick with that career. so what some of the airlines are doing are they are going down to colleges. they are even going to elementary schools and they are trying to generate more interest in the career. they are also working with flight schools. and with the regional carriers, they want to help the pilots more. the guys and girls that want to be pilots, they could help them financially. they want to give them incentives like a signing bonus. david: did the airlines see this coming?

they have mandatory retirement ages. you would think that they would know that in a few years time they would be facing this crisis. mary: there has always been that fear of a bubble. the retirement age was extended to 65, so that was supposed to help with the bubble. now they are coming upon a time in 2026 where half of the current pilots will be eligible for -- they will have to retire because they are 65. so that will be about 15,000 of the more they can 30,000 pilots in the industry. carol: kickstarter finds a way to make its investors happy. without going public. david: and happy hour outside the bar. ♪

♪ carol: welcome back.

i'm carol massar. david: and i'm david gura. in the technology section, kickstarter is forging its own path. joshua: they would not give me any particulars about the financials. neither would any of the people who received the dividends. carol: they don't have to. joshua: they are a private company. they don't have to. and they said they will stay that way. that is a reason that they gave out the dividends as well. kickstarter has said it's not interested in going public they are not interested in being acquired. and so they are trying to give their investors something. carol: that's interesting. they are running the business differently than others. joshua: if you were going to pick a company to have done something like this, they would have been on the top your list. -- top of your list. they donate a specific portion of profits, i think 5%, to charities that are like-minded. they have made into their financial documents that they won't be too clever with their taxes. they will just pay them. so these are things that, you know, are not -- carol: what is going on in the world?

it is interesting. does it question the traditional venture capital model that has been out there for so long with the endgame being an ipo? joshua: ned is one of the things that is so interesting about this. this is essentially a rejection of the vc model. which is, you put a bunch of money into companies, nine out of 10 just dies. and the 10th one is usually bought out by google or goes public. and kickstarter says we are happy to just move along. we do not need to have astronomical growth every quarter. we don't need to reach these arabian heights. we have a good business and we like what we are doing and it's sustainable. carol: venture capital is ok with this? joshua: their main cap is fred wilson. he said he wanted to experiment with something different. he knew from the beginning that this was the deal with kickstarter and he said it was ok. i talked to some other venture

people who were not invested in kickstarter. they said they were intrigued, but they said it's an anomaly. i probably would not want to work under this model. carol: that's what i think when i read your story. there are going to the other companies that will follow like kickstarter. what is the expectation? joshua: there will be an increasing number of companies that try things like this. especially inside of the kickstarter part of the industry, where they like to see themselves as sort of the do-gooders. they are not sort of cold, hard profit machine. that is part of their company. carol: helping other people get off the ground. exactly. >> they just want, i got the sense that companies are interested in this, but it will be a small part of the industry. david: moving happy hour outside. carol: here is brett. brett: there are many things you can do that don't involve alcohol. we have many of them in the section this week.

also, you're happy hour does not have to happen after work. if you really know that to you are not going to be able to get out of work at a reasonable hour, switch up your routine in the morning. don't drink between 7:00 and 9:00. david: wise advice. brett: that's wise advice. you can try nitro coffee. which is coming to 500 starbucks. it makes it really frothy and creamy. it is nitrogen injected into the coffee. it's delicious. they do it in houston right now. you can workout. instead of taking the run on the treadmill, in chicago you actually can go to the roof of a hotel and do a cardio workout up there. in los angeles, instead of being stuck in traffic, you can take the new light rail line. you can bring a surfboard on their and it is super cheap. david: you asked your colleagues to chart out how they spent their evenings. one of them walked the dog. the french little.

poodle.are french there are other things you can do besides going to the bars. brett: you don't have to put that much time into it. one of the things we are trying to stress is be conscious of how you spend your time. you can walk a friend's dog. you can go to an art park. one of our editors went to play basketball and then got frozen yogurt. it was just a different thing that they did. they really changed up their night. and they had a good time. carol: bloomberg businessweek is on news stands now. david: what was your favorite story? carol: i had no idea about the pilot shortage. it is really impacting regional carriers. and we talked about how millennials, they are not getting into being a pilot anymore. david: not a desirable career. carol: and expensive. how about you? david: i really like the piece on what could be this immense breakthrough in medicine and agriculture. this gene editing business. i loved the back story about the two sides and they are fighting

about who found it first. it is a cool piece. universities are fighting it out as well. very cool. we will see you back here next week on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪

♪ cory: i am cory johnson, in for emily chang, and this is the best of "bloomberg west." we bring you all of our top interviews from the week in technology. coming up, the brexit vote. we'll find out what it means for investors. plus, our exclusive sit down interview with billionaire investor mark cuban. his choice words on everything from brexit to donald trump. and we will sit with the ceo of box and ask how his company is preparing for a european split. but first, to our lead global