Letters of Intent: Musk Goes Crazy Ex-Boyfriend and Sues OpenAI
[Pankaj Raval] (0:05 - 0:30)
All right, well, welcome to Letters of Intent, the podcast where we explore all things business law, from startups to mergers, from contracts to compliance, and everything in between. I'm Pankaj Raval, founder of Carbon Law Group. And joining me today is my co-host, Sahil Chowdhury, our corporate attorney here at Carbon Law Group.
Sahil, welcome again.
[Sahil Chaudry] (0:30 - 0:31)
It's great to be here.
[Pankaj Raval] (0:32 - 0:48)
Wonderful. So, Sahil, I see you found a really interesting case to talk about, something in the news that's timely with all that's happening in the world. I'm sure there's a lot to talk about, but one in particular instance is this person named Elon Musk.
I feel like he...
[Sahil Chaudry] (0:50 - 0:51)
That's right. Middle-known entrepreneur, Elon Musk.
[Pankaj Raval] (0:51 - 1:00)
Middle-known entrepreneur, yeah, just fledgling, just made his break, right? Yeah. That's right.
Tell us what's going on with Elon Musk in the world of law.
[Sahil Chaudry] (1:01 - 2:08)
Okay, perfect. Well, Elon Musk is suing OpenAI, the platform that has changed all of our lives. He's suing OpenAI, Sam Altman, and the president of OpenAI, Greg Brockman, arguing that the company has abandoned its original nonprofit mission and transformed into a profit-driven enterprise controlled by Microsoft.
So this lawsuit raises some really interesting corporate law questions, including contract breaches and fiduciary duties in nonprofit governance, the legality of nonprofit transitioning into a for-profit entity, and there are also antitrust concerns related to Microsoft's influence over OpenAI. And for our clients, there are some implications here because oftentimes a client of ours will want to start a nonprofit and it might, may or may not be the best option given the goal and the purpose. And this case kind of breaks down different ways of thinking about what is the mission of the entity and does that line up with the actual execution of the organization?
[Pankaj Raval] (2:09 - 2:32)
Yeah, really, really interesting. I think this seems like a case where the parties had the best intents, they had the best intentions of creating a company that is going to be ethical and have this kind of nonprofit mission. But as we can see, it made actually things maybe more complicated for them in the long run.
[Sahil Chaudry] (2:33 - 3:35)
That's true. So when OpenAI was founded in 2015, it was funded by donations because it was a nonprofit and they were able to receive donations in an amount that equaled around a billion dollars. So that is kind of, from an outsider's perspective, it looks like any other corporation, but in fact it was founded as a nonprofit organization with the mission of developing AI.
And specifically in their charter, it's for the benefit of humanity. Elon Musk was one of the key early funders, invested millions into the company. But in 2018, Musk left OpenAI after a dispute over control.
In 2019, OpenAI transitioned from a nonprofit to a for-profit model. And this is called specifically a capped profit model. That allowed them to raise billions of dollars in funding and the biggest investor was Microsoft, which has poured $10 billion into OpenAI.
So what's the capped profit model? It's basically a nonprofit that owns a for-profit entity.
[Pankaj Raval] (3:36 - 3:36)
Interesting.
[Sahil Chaudry] (3:37 - 3:57)
Now, that for-profit entity does have certain rules and that for-profit entity has restrictions around the money that's earned. But it does allow you to share money with shareholders in the for-profit entity as long as the primary beneficiary of that entity is the nonprofit ultimately.
[Pankaj Raval] (3:57 - 3:58)
Interesting.
[Sahil Chaudry] (3:58 - 4:20)
So we fast forward to February 2024 and Musk files a lawsuit in California State Court claiming that one, OpenAI has abandoned its nonprofit mission, two, OpenAI is now profit-driven and controlled by Microsoft, and three, the transition to a for-profit entity violated OpenAI's original charter.
[Pankaj Raval] (4:20 - 4:25)
Fascinating. So what does this mean? What is Musk's goal here?
[Sahil Chaudry] (4:25 - 5:42)
It's a good question. I mean, some people think it's related to his concerns about Microsoft. And in fact, Musk has raised antitrust concerns here under the Clayton Act.
So essentially, you know, society has, and as a result, the government has passed laws to prevent monopolies from being developed in order to encourage price competition, make sure that consumers are protected. So what Musk is alleging here is basically this is a de facto merger with Microsoft. Even though OpenAI is saying, no, it's not, Musk is saying, look, Microsoft is basically exerting an inordinate amount of control over OpenAI.
And so this is basically a merger. They're cornering the market. And there are concerns from Musk's side that his own AI projects might get sidelined as a result.
So there could be an altruistic humanitarian reason here. But there also could be a personal profit reason here, which is that he might be getting marginalized in this race to conquer AI. And from a guy, you know, ripping a chainsaw on stage at CPAC, I don't know how altruistic it is.
We don't know.
[Pankaj Raval] (5:42 - 6:25)
Right. Right. No, this is this is interesting.
Yeah. Because, yeah, we're seeing, you know, what he's doing in the public. You know, I recently, you know, tried out his his AI Grok, you know, Grok 3, they had a new release.
And and yeah, it absolutely smells like he is concerned with his own business interests as well with with filing this lawsuit. So it's interesting now he's like resorting to litigation, which is not new for him. You know, when you have four billion dollars, it's easy to file lawsuits left and right.
But in any and potentially try to slow this down. But it doesn't sound like he's going to be able to slow things down too much. What are the other issues in this case?
[Sahil Chaudry] (6:25 - 7:17)
So to go through the the legal process here, the case was originally filed in California State Court, but later moved to the federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 4th, 2025. That's just two days ago. Judge Rogers denied Musk's request for a preliminary injunction.
So this is a big deal because essentially open AI wants to be able to operate in this capped profit model and Musk wants to prevent them from being able to do that. And he's been denied his preliminary injunction, which means on the facts alone, there is not a case to be made where it's an automatic injunction that this should be prevented. There's some kind of irreparable harm that could come from not preventing this.
So that's a loss for Musk.
[Pankaj Raval] (7:18 - 7:24)
What does an injunction do just for, you know, listeners who may not be familiar? What does that mean if someone's trying to get an injunction?
[Sahil Chaudry] (7:24 - 8:07)
So there are two basic types of remedies in a court of law. One is financial money damages. Well, in a civil in a civil court, money or the alternative remedy is a remedy of equity, which is an injunction, which means physically we are halting you from doing something because we're worried that you continuing to do this, there's a too high of a risk that if you're doing something that is, in fact, unlawful.
We don't want to let the repercussions of that. The risk of of what you're doing is, in fact, very high and the risk that it is unlawful is very high. And so we have a right to stop you from doing it until we figure out if it's lawful or not.
[Pankaj Raval] (8:07 - 8:07)
Right.
[Sahil Chaudry] (8:08 - 8:14)
Yeah. A preliminary injunction allows you before there's a verdict to stop someone from doing what they're doing.
[Pankaj Raval] (8:14 - 8:26)
It's a pretty aggressive approach. Right. I mean, I think usually people file a lawsuit.
It goes into discovery, but but an injunction essentially tries to quickly stop someone from doing something.
[Sahil Chaudry] (8:26 - 8:26)
That's right.
[Pankaj Raval] (8:27 - 8:28)
Yeah. Right. OK.
Interesting.
[Sahil Chaudry] (8:28 - 9:09)
Yeah. In fact, it stops someone from doing something. It is a very aggressive approach because you're not even letting the matter be litigated.
You're asking for the judge to intervene and block them from doing what they're doing, which in this case, if we look at the scales here, there's quite a big interest. Society's interest in open eye is actually quite high, where open eye, open eye functioning. It's kicked open the doors for the public to be able to use this service.
And so it's a pretty it probably was a very high burden to me in order to establish in order to to compel an injunction.
[Pankaj Raval] (9:10 - 9:16)
So Musk is trying to block open eyes for profit transition immediately. What does that mean?
[Sahil Chaudry] (9:17 - 9:38)
Musk was seeking a preliminary injunction to halt open eyes partnership with Microsoft and prevent further commercialization of its eye models while the case was pending. But the judge ruled that must didn't provide enough evidence to justify immediate intervention. However, she did allow some key claims to proceed to trial, recognizing that this case raises significant public interest issues.
[Pankaj Raval] (9:39 - 9:45)
So it is going to trial, but, you know, he he he failed to obtain that preliminary injunction.
[Sahil Chaudry] (9:45 - 10:36)
Exactly. So that doesn't mean that open eye is out of the woods yet. It means that, you know, it could be that because on one hand, Musk is arguing something that is in the public interest, which is should open eye remain a nonprofit entity or should it have a for profit component?
And the judge probably does have to weigh those factors. The judge has to weigh is there a public interest in in ensuring that open eye remains a nonprofit completely or is there some benefit to the profit incentive? And ultimately, the judge will probably have to investigate the Clayton Act claims, the the antitrust claims, as well as whether taking this action breaches the original charter of the nonprofit.
[Pankaj Raval] (10:36 - 11:14)
It is fascinating because, yeah, you have more restrictions as a nonprofit. You know, this this kind of reminds I think reminds us, reminds listeners, hopefully, that the type of entity you choose does really matter in terms of what you can do. And, you know, especially depending on where you set it up, you know, there's benefit corporations, especially as you get larger, you have a lot more stakeholders and now you have to be answering to a lot more people and your charter and, you know, what your founding documents really say really do matter, which is really interesting.
So this doesn't seem like the only only issue raised by Musk in this case. Tell us what else came up in this case. What else is Musk alleging?
[Sahil Chaudry] (11:14 - 11:46)
Yeah, so Musk is basically alleging that Microsoft 10 billion dollars has effectively turned open eye into a subsidiary of Microsoft, which could violate antitrust laws. So specifically, you have the Clayton Act Section 8 prohibits the prohibits interlocking directorates where one company exerts too much influence over another in an anti competitive way. So essentially.
If open eye and Microsoft are teamed up, could they squash all the other competition to the point where there are no other real competitors?
[Pankaj Raval] (11:46 - 11:47)
Right.
[Sahil Chaudry] (11:47 - 13:18)
That could be that could be a bad situation for consumers who then only have one option and there's a risk of price gouging. There are all kinds of reasons for the Clayton Act to be in existence. But that's that's an issue that Musk is bringing up.
Musk is also alleging that there's a de facto merger here. Microsoft's influence over open eye is so strong that it should legally be considered a merger, which would require antitrust review. That is a big issue.
And then the issue that I think relates to our own clients as well is the issue of does this breach the founding charter of the nonprofit? And that's where a lot of our clients might download a template for incorporation documents. But what you write in that charter actually does matter, especially if it's a nonprofit.
If it's a nonprofit, you are governed by your scrutinized much more heavily by the state government. And you can't just engage in any kind of transaction you want. There are some very strict rules.
And this is a very good example here. It begs the question. I mean, I wasn't in the boardroom when Sam Altman was deciding to launch OpenAI, but it does beg the question, like, why why choose a nonprofit in this case?
And I wonder if in your experience with clients, if you've you've seen something that could go either way, it could be a for profit or a nonprofit. Why why would someone choose a nonprofit?
[Pankaj Raval] (13:18 - 14:50)
Yeah, this is interesting. You know, I mean, actually, I listened to an interview of Sam Altman actually shortly. I think it was shortly after he they tried to kick him out.
Well, they did remove him. They fired him and then they brought him back. And, you know, it was a very tumultuous time at OpenAI, which kind of raised a lot of sound of the alarm, I think, to a lot of people saying, oh, what exactly is happening here?
You know, what have they figured out that's causing all this internal strife? You know, there's a lot of questions. And I think, you know, based on what he was saying, it sounded like they really had this goal to set up an ethically based AI company because they understood they understood the reality of the risks of creating an AI company and obtaining AGI.
And what would that mean for the world and the risks of developing AI? And wanting to do it ethically. So they wanted to create a nonprofit foundation, nonprofit that would fund that and hopefully, I think, share that those findings with the world.
However, you know, it looks like Microsoft's involvement, the involvement of so many other kind of so much private money has probably muddied that. And now there's a lot of people seeing the dollar signs and now they're saying, oh, well, maybe it's better to be commercially viable as opposed to being a nonprofit. It's just my conjecture.
I would actually have to read a little bit more about this. And I don't know if anyone knows the truth, but it seems like that was the intention originally.
[Sahil Chaudry] (14:51 - 16:36)
Just in conversations with our clients, I do feel this does bring us to a broader question, which is if someone is thinking about starting an organization, did they go for a nonprofit or a for profit? And I would say that if you're going to start a nonprofit, it sounds like because especially it's a charitable organization, there isn't the objective of profit making. So sometimes our clients might think it's an easy thing to do, but it actually comes with a lot of regulation.
So if you genuinely want to prioritize a public benefit and accept tax exempt donations and you are comfortable with having very strict regulations regarding being board controlled. Then we can go with a nonprofit and also if you are comfortable with raising money in the form of donations, but not in the form of shares, if you have people are expecting some kind of return on their investment, a nonprofit model is definitely not the way to go. I think people hear that nonprofits are tax exempt and try to think of, OK, how can we come up with a way where we can use this model for a for profit purpose?
But it's far too difficult and far too regulated. I think from our perspective to to let those lines get blurry, if you're going for a nonprofit, it strictly needs to be for the purpose of a charitable purpose, a public benefit. And you have to know that you don't own that corporation.
That corporation is actually it doesn't have shares. It's actually governed by the state. And in fact, you're really operating that organization as a trustee on behalf of the state in a way.
[Pankaj Raval] (16:37 - 18:04)
That's a great point. That's a great point. That's a great point.
Yeah. There's a lot of nuances with starting a nonprofit. I think we could probably do a whole podcast on that subject itself because people don't realize the complexity in terms of the ownership of the assets.
If you dissolve or liquidate, where do the assets go? The assets have to go to another nonprofit. So these are all really interesting issues that come up and also just compliance.
When you create a nonprofit, a lot of people don't recognize that you file a state formation document, whatever state it might be in, but then you make you apply to the IRS under rule 501, whatever. There's a variety of different exemptions that you can apply for. But I think it's 501C3 is the public nonprofit.
But there's private foundations, there's political action, there's religious foundations. So it all really depends on what you're doing. But also the IRS is going to check because this is oftentimes abused by so many different organizations.
You have these megachurches making billions and millions of dollars and they're tax free. So the IRS is definitely going to look at what you're doing and ensure that you do actually have a public purpose. And there's so much fraud every year that is found by people using nonprofits to avoid taxes.
And definitely, people got to know that that is a reality they're going to have to address if they're trying to use a nonprofit for some nefarious or incorrect purpose.
[Sahil Chaudry] (18:05 - 18:54)
So it does mean that the time you spend deciding what kind of entity you're starting with is time well spent. We can see in this case that this is now the difference between being a nonprofit and for profit and transitioning to a hybrid capped profit model is now causing open AI to go through litigation. That's going to be very expensive.
They're going through this conflict. It's really important to know at the beginning of your journey, knowing that things can change, but it's really important at the beginning of your journey to know what's your goal. And the more you think about your goal, the more prepared you are to file the right kind of entity.
And that entity can then carry you into your objectives.
[Pankaj Raval] (18:54 - 19:05)
You know, talking about this case, there's other claims brought by Musk about breach of contract. I'm not sure if we got into those, but yeah, maybe you can explain to us what those are about.
[Sahil Chaudry] (19:05 - 21:30)
Yeah. So essentially, Musk is arguing that open AI's founders, including Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, agreed to keep open AI nonprofit. And by transitioning to a for profit model, they broke that agreement.
Additionally, he claims that open AI's leaders had a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the nonprofit mission. But instead, they prioritize profit and investor interests, particularly Microsoft's. You know, in this case, we're saying when you form an entity that operating agreement, those articles of incorporation, those bylaws, those are a contract and they're an important document that that ensures your company or your nonprofit is executing the objectives that it set out to execute on.
And it becomes really important in a nonprofit because there is a public benefit component there. So Musk is arguing that, look, this whole thing, this whole thing was started specifically to help humanity, to use, to make AI accessible to people. And now by adding this for profit entity, even though legally you can use a capped profit approach where your nonprofit owns a for profit, that's possible.
That's legally possible, except Musk is claiming to do that runs completely counter to the original charter. So if it didn't run counter to the original charter, there could be room and there still might be, depending on how Judge Rogers rules. But as of right now, Musk is arguing you're breaching contract and you're also breaching your fiduciary duty.
So fiduciary duties are implied duties that someone responsible for an organization has. So, for example, a fiduciary duty is to act reasonably. A fiduciary duty is to protect the interests of your stakeholders.
In this case, that could be the directors. In this case, that could also be the public interest that is being served. In a for profit corporation, you have fiduciary duties to your shareholders specifically.
But in this case, there are no shareholders. So you've got fiduciary duties to public interest that you're serving. So that could be a really interesting argument that Musk could make.
[Pankaj Raval] (21:31 - 22:04)
You know, this fiduciary duty breach is really an interesting one. I think it comes up a lot in multi-member entities, whether it be LLCs or corporations. And it's that duty of loyalty, the duty of good faith that can often be alleged that someone is breaching due to the self-dealing or whatever it might be.
So definitely an interesting issue. But it also brings up a kind of a broader legal question. In this case, can a nonprofit even transition into a for profit legal entity?
I mean, is that even possible?
[Sahil Chaudry] (22:04 - 22:58)
Yes. The answer is yes, but it's complicated. When a nonprofit shifts to a for profit model, it must comply with strict legal guidelines.
There are asset transfer rules. Nonprofits cannot simply convert to a for profit. They must sell their assets at a fair market value to ensure no private individual benefits unfairly.
And also, when they're selling substantially all their assets, those assets must go to another nonprofit. There are board and donor obligations. If the nonprofit received tax exempt donations, the board must prove that its new structure still aligns with its original mission.
See, for example, if I've accepted donations as nonprofit, somebody gave me that money for a specific purpose. If that money now is being or the assets that I purchased with that money are now being used for another purpose, that violates the spirit of where the donation came from in the first place.
[Pankaj Raval] (22:59 - 22:59)
Makes sense.
[Sahil Chaudry] (22:59 - 24:01)
So it's not like in a for profit entity where if I buy computers and those computers are used to store the inventory of chocolates I'm selling, it doesn't matter if I'm selling chocolates or shirts or shovels. It's it's essentially as long as I'm in a profit making enterprise, most likely that could align with my charter, my LLC agreement or my articles of incorporation, my bylaws. However, if I'm a nonprofit and I'm specifically focused on something like AI, even if it's a charitable purpose, if it doesn't align with the mission for which the donation was given, that could be a problem.
In OpenAI's case, it's transitioning to a cap profit model where the for profit arm OpenAI LP is still governed by the nonprofit entity and in fact is owned by the nonprofit entity. But Musk is arguing that this is just a loophole that allows them to act like a private company. And in a way, it is.
[Pankaj Raval] (24:02 - 24:09)
That is that is fascinating. Yeah, I feel like there's I mean, I don't think like Musk is off base. I mean, what do you think about Musk's argument?
[Sahil Chaudry] (24:10 - 26:00)
It seems like Musk does have an argument here. If we if we break down the legal arguments, let's start with let's start with the Clayton Act and antitrust. Yeah, I think there's an argument here because Microsoft and OpenAI could certainly corner the market.
There aren't that many players with those kinds of resources. Do I think there might be a selfish profit interest here from Musk's side where he feels like he's getting sidelined out of the AI game? I think, yes, that that is a possibility.
But there is. Is there a legal argument? Yes, there is a legal argument here.
And then the second issue, if we deal with the charter, the charter is specifically aimed at engaging with AI and promoting AI for the benefit of humanity. So if there is a for profit arm that is now able to raise money and profit all off of the work that the nonprofit has been doing. Yes, that does seem like it could subvert the purpose of the charter in the first place.
And finally, the question of fiduciary duty, the question becomes, does launching this for profit entity serve the the fiduciaries of OpenAI? Now, the question becomes, who is the fiduciary? And in a nonprofit, the fiduciary is the people that that nonprofit is serving, the beneficiary.
So if the public benefits more. Since that's what the purpose of the charter is, the charter is saying the purpose of this entity is to empower humanity with the tools of AI, if this for profit entity does not serve that purpose, there certainly is an argument that this is violating the fiduciary duties the directors have.
[Pankaj Raval] (26:01 - 26:12)
This also kind of raises a question now that, you know, if we're seeing OpenAI start a nonprofit instead of for profit, is it better to start a nonprofit than a for profit in today's world?
[Sahil Chaudry] (26:12 - 28:01)
It's a good question. I think if you genuinely have a nonprofit purpose, I think the issue is here. OpenAI launched with a nonprofit purpose, but did they?
You know, the question is, was it maybe more financially lucrative or interesting to start a nonprofit and collect donations from all of these business interests? I mean, the business interests initially that we're funding, I mean, Elon Musk donated millions of dollars. So you had you actually did have these very large business players who are donating this money.
But now the question is, was that really more of a financial play? And was the end game going to be, well, once, you know, these are all tax, this is tax exempt money. Let's use this to create a commercially viable product and then we'll capitalize on that.
And maybe Musk and the other players who were in on this from the beginning knew that that was the roadmap. And but when that roadmap started to threaten their own interests, they want to, you know, throw a wrench in this machine that's now going in a for profit direction. Or or Musk is genuinely concerned about empowering humanity with AI and is concerned that now, even though initially it was a nonprofit purpose, give it some time and people start seeing dollar signs.
And now the purpose is subverted because there's just too much money to ignore and people can make too much off of this. And maybe initially the players involved didn't realize they could make that much. But I doubt it.
I mean, we're playing with some some very intelligent, powerful people here.
[Pankaj Raval] (28:01 - 28:28)
I mean, it's interesting, you know, it's the there's a I think agreed element to this, you know, a personal interest element to this that people have to kind of consider as well in terms of the motivations. Let's say, you know, you're not sure between a nonprofit and for profit. You want to benefit, you know, you want to do something that's benefiting humanity.
You feel like you have some kind of altruistic mission, but also maybe you don't want to be tied down by some of the some of the restrictions of nonprofit. Is there a middle ground?
[Sahil Chaudry] (28:29 - 29:30)
Yes, there is a middle ground. The middle ground would actually be the example we're talking about here, which is the cap profit model, which is where you have a nonprofit. You don't own the nonprofit, but the nonprofit owns for profit entities.
And those for profit entities can earn money as long as they're supporting the nonprofit. So you can still have shareholders who benefit in that subsidiary, but the primary beneficiary needs to be the nonprofit. So there is a middle ground.
I would say that if you are identifying the model, that if you're unsure, it's better to err on the side of a for profit entity because you can earn profit through that entity. And then you could always donate the money. If you have a charitable cause, you could donate that money and benefit from a tax exempt donation without being subject to without being subject to the rules around nonprofits.
[Pankaj Raval] (29:31 - 30:06)
There's definitely a lot to talk about. I think definitely in a future episode, we'll be we'll be going a little bit deeper into nonprofits and what that means in today's world as well, because changing regulations. But, you know, this is this has been a fascinating conversation.
You know, I think to sum it up, it sounds like a must lawsuit raises kind of critical legal questions about nonprofit governance, corporate ethics and even antitrust laws. What else do you feel is your main takeaway from from this lawsuit that must filed and and even our conversation today?
[Sahil Chaudry] (30:06 - 31:38)
I think it also highlights the complexities of nonprofit transitions and why founders need strong legal guidance when structuring their organizations. I think people can easily take for granted the the legal structuring that's required for you to do what you want to do. If you are you've discovered a product or you have a charitable cause, there's something that you really want to do, but we're in a regulated environment.
And so having legal counsel that walks you through each step of the way before you are able to run and trip, it's better to just have us there to walk you through those transactions to ensure that a legal issue is not going to be the thing that holds you back from achieving your goals. Yeah, it highlights the complexities of nonprofit transitions and why founders need strong legal guidance when structuring their organizations. The decision of whether you're a C Corp or whether you're an S Corp or an LLC or a nonprofit or a cap profit model in this case, it's not such a simple decision and it's important to have legal counsel guide you through each step of the way, even when it's time to change.
There might be a situation where there's a dynamic situation, there's a new transaction, there's a new idea. There is a way to do it, but we're in a highly regulated environment. And so you need to make sure you're compliant so that you don't trip over yourself in the process of doing what you love.
[Pankaj Raval] (31:39 - 32:59)
It is fascinating. I think the irony is that also Mr. Musk is now bringing a chainsaw to the federal government to try to eliminate all the regulations that he's now suing over, too. You know, so it is an interesting kind of pot calling the kettle black situation here where he's doing, you know, he's complaining about regulations and complaining about people not following rules on one side.
But he is now also actively engaged in dismantling the regulations that govern a lot of business and other aspects of our political life. So, Sahil, thank you so much for your astute breakdown of this case. I think it was extremely fascinating and I learned a lot from the information presented today.
That is the episode for Letters of Intent today. We have many more coming. And if you guys want to hear about anything specific or have questions, please leave us a message, DM us, email us, easy to get a hold of us at CarbonLawGroup.com or CarbonLG.com and as well as on social media. Sahil is on social media. I'm on social media through LinkedIn. So we'd love to hear back from you.
We want to know if this is a valuable insight and we hope to hear from you again or see you again on future episodes.
