Letters of Intent

Pankaj Raval (00:00)
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to another episode of Letters of Intent. I am your co host, Pankaj Raval, and I am joined today by my trusted co host and corporate attorney here at Carbon Law Group, Sahil Chaudry. Sahil, how are you today?

Sahil Chaudry (00:12)
I'm doing great, and today we want to welcome our whole carbon community to another episode of Letters of Intent, the podcast for dealmakers and risk takers. And today we welcome you to our weekly show where we break down the biggest headlines in deal making and how they apply to you. So I want to give you the rundown. Our first story centers on Taylor Swift getting sued over the name of her album.

Pankaj Raval (00:23)
Absolutely.

Sahil Chaudry (00:37)
And the trademark lesson here will apply to every brand name, product line, and logo that you own. The second story we're going to cover will be Elon Musk is about to pull off a $3.4 trillion merger. I know all eyes are on this merger, but there is a legal trap buried inside it that many founders, even in the private markets, can fall prey to.

And how this ends will decide whether your content is an asset that you license or just free training data for someone else. So Pankaj, let's start with IP and kick things off with Taylor Swift's showgirl trademark fight. What do we need to know?

Pankaj Raval (01:12)
Here we go. Taylor Swift in the news again. She is a savvy business person. matter how big she is, no matter how big you are, cannot escape the law when it comes to IP and trademarks. And this is just an example of that. Sahil this is another situation where we a famous company, a famous artist want to use a mark that may have some issues.

So, we don't know how much of a search she did, how much of an analysis they did before they filed this trademark. Generally speaking, when people hire us to file a trademark, we're gonna do a search and analysis report. We're gonna cite possible conflicts and discuss the risks for clients going forward. However, in the world of business and art, sometimes you gotta move forward even if there are risks. And I think that probably is what they decided to do here because

the plaintiff has had this trademark since 2015 and at issue here is called confessions of a showgirl. So Swift has the trademark or has filed for the trademark Life of a Showgirl. And we have this person, Flagg, who filed a trademark in twenty fifteen for Confessions of a Showgirl. So I'll leave it to you guys to think, okay, are these confusingly similar? they both are artists, they both

Have acts that kind of go on the road. so do you feel like there could be confusion here? I think there's a strong argument that says that Taylor Swift is her very much her own brand, and this is probably maybe a sub brand of Taylor Swift. But when it comes to trademark law, it's not that simple. there's an injunction that's been filed to try to stop Taylor Swift's use of the mark and probably also ask for damages. However, that has been fiercely opposed.

Swift's legal team. I have a feeling this is not going to be resolved anytime soon unless there's some kind of settlement to have this kind of just go away. but there may be a payout here for flag. So it shows you that hey, even if you're a small fish in this big sea, no matter what, your trademarks really could have significant value if there happens to be a famous person, a billionaire, someone

who comes along and likes your trademark, you could still have some very significant value here in your mark because it is an asset and it is so essentially a property right. So you want to think about that when you're filing your trademarks. And it is definitely better to have that trademark protection

Sahil Chaudry (03:11)
And that's where Wade's argument comes in. She's arguing reverse confusion. She's saying Swift is so big that people are going to think that she came up with the idea for this showgirl name when in reality Wade has actually registered the mark in twenty fifteen. And so Swift's argument here centers around this concept of an expressive work.

Pankaj Raval (03:15)
Right.

Right. Exactly.

Sahil Chaudry (03:33)
try to kind of skirt around the registered trademark. What does that mean? What is an expressive work?

Pankaj Raval (03:38)
Yeah, so it's kind of like a nuance between copyright and trademark that people use to argue that the name itself doesn't fall under certain protections of trademark law. Here is arguing the title of her work, the title of her album, can get First Amendment protection under something called the Rogers Test.

And that means the work is protected if the title has artistic relevance or isn't explicitly misleading. and that's the shield she's trying to use right now. She's trying to say that hey, this has some relevance to what she's doing. There's an artistic element here, it's a single title, and single titles of works are generally not entitled to trademark protection. You can get trademark protections for like series of works. For example, the Harry Potter series has

trademark protection, but if it's a single book, you're not generally not gonna have trademark protection there. I think that's the argument they're making. But that doesn't necessarily get them around some of the trademark issues though, too. So I think yes, it does protect them in certain elements when it comes to protecting the work, but it doesn't, I think, protect them in all capacities here. So I think it is an interesting argument, but I don't know if it's gonna get them to cross the finish line.

Sahil Chaudry (04:37)
Yeah. We've got The Life of a Showgirl is Taylor Swift's album and Confessions of a Showgirl is Wade's trademark. So the question is if Swift is going to have this album, merch, is going to be leveraging this name, does that bleed into people getting confused over the origin of Wade's mark?

and how really be thinking about this in terms of the way a court will evaluate this?

What's the most important test here? Is it a test related to confusion and confusion in the marketplace?

Pankaj Raval (05:10)
so when we're looking at trademark law, that's really one of the primary tests we look at when we are evaluating trademarks. And the that the courts apply is called Likelihood of Confusion. And Likelihood of Confusion is comprised of thirteen different factors according to the DuPont test from the Supreme Court, which is the Supreme Court analysis of how trademark confusion works, or you have Sleekcraft.

is in the ninth circuit. So those are about this nine factors. So it really just kind of depends where you are. The different circuits will have different tests applied. But fundamentally the questions are very similar. there's 13 in the DuPont because some of them are separated while the Sleekcraft seems to combine some of these questions into one question. So but fundamentally you're looking at okay

How similar are the goods? How similar are the trade channels? How similar are the consumers? How are the marks? What is their commercial impression? You're going to look at construction of the marks. You're going to have to look at phonetics. Are they phonetically equivalent? Is uses of the mark out there? You're looking There's a lot of different factors you're going a trademark analysis when you're looking at Likelihood of confusion.

And that's really the main test. And to determine, whether something is confusing is not exactly easy or cheap. Oftentimes, in trademark litigation, we'll have to hire an expert hire a company that does a survey and actually go out there and get these surveys done, and they're very expensive to do, to figure out okay, are these marks actually confusing? Does a consumer that's relevant to your market find these marks confusing? And that's a big question. And here

again the question is not so much about just likelihood of confusion, but it's also reverse confusion. Oftentimes likelihood of confusion is okay, when two marks are similar, when the size of the companies are similar, we look at likelihood of confusion. Here, Taylor Swift is obviously such a massive global phenomena. She's assumed a mark that is causing what the plaintiffs are saying reverse confusion. That means that the little guy is being harmed by this big player flooding the market with

their use of the term and is now consumers to associate that term with them instead of the plaintiff who actually had this mark for the longest time. So what you want to think about when you're registering a mark is do you have the priority is your mark distinctive enough? And what we always say is like, using it first commercially is best, also making sure that your mark is distinctive that

means looking at the Likelihood of Confusion test. So those are the two things you really want to think about, fundamentally, but there's obviously a lot more to it as well.

Sahil Chaudry (07:21)
All right, Pankaj. This brings us to our second segment, Musk's Tesla SpaceX merger. This is, as we all know by now, a merger that is on the horizon, and it is going to be the largest in history. We've already seen Elon Musk play chess with his own companies. xAI was already folded into SpaceX in February. a Tesla SpaceX combo is going to put

Cars, Rockets, Starlink, and xAI under one roof. This is massive scale. We're talking about a combined entity that has a value of three point four trillion dollars, anchored by a potential SpaceX IPO valuation near one point seven five trillion dollars. Now

Pankaj Raval (08:00)
A lot of zeros.

Sahil Chaudry (08:01)
That's yeah, this is huge. And it would also be a giant that is currently burning cash. Not the first time we've seen that. Amazon was also burning cash pre-IPO. Tesla guided to negative free cash flow. Tesla is anticipated to have negative free cash flow for the rest of 2026, a meta greater than $25 billion CapEx.

Tesla has already put 2.2 billion dollars of equity into SpaceX. they're partnering on the largest US chip fab at Giga Factory Texas. And Tesla booked $430.1 million dollars from xAI and $143.3 million from SpaceX in 2025.

We've seen a lot of commentators ranging from Scott Galloway to even the polymarket and Kalshi markets who are kind of cooling on this IPO. Now, what's interesting here for us from a corporate governance perspective is that Musk is on both sides of the table. He controls the buyer and the seller. Now, this is a structure we actually deal with regularly. do Section 351 mergers. There are often stock-for-stock transactions where

a merger is occurring that's for the benefit of a reorganization or a restructuring, but you have one individual who's the primary owner of each entity. So you have a lot of fiduciary duties here. And as we know, directors owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. You have to protect the other members of your cap table. And a conflicted deal can flip the court's standard from the deferential business judgment rule to an entire fairness rule.

And the company must prove both a fair price and a fair process. This is if you have heard your lawyer or your CPA talk about a 409A valuation, that's where this comes in too. You want to have a fair market valuation at multiple stages of your company that comes into play when it comes to fairness, fiduciary duty, the IRS. can't just say your shares are what you think they are. You actually have to have some basis for that, and that goes into fairness.

And specifically fairness towards your other investors. There are ways that this is going to de-risked. will most likely be a special committee of independent directors, an independent bankers' fairness opinion, genuine arm's length negotiation, and a majority of the minority shareholder vote. In Delaware, if we do both up front, then we're able to restore that lower threshold of business judgment.

as opposed to an entire fairness consideration. Now, there's a major risk here, which is key man concentration risk. this entity is going to be hugely dependent on one person. that's a governance and disclosure risk that's going to have to be disclosed to the investors. we're also looking at a potential regulatory wall, combining a public automaker with a defense adjacent rocket company. That is definitely gonna invite some antitrust and national security review.

Pankaj Raval (10:32)
Jump.

Sahil Chaudry (10:41)
Okay, well, this is the largest IPO in history and it doesn't involve you. So why are we talking about it? Because it does apply to you. are many different ways that you can restructure your companies when you are also involved in a deal where there are related where let's say you're the primary owner of two companies, or the parties are just related in some other way where there might be a potential conflict of interest.

You still can structure a holdco structure. This is applicable, especially when you've got private equity roll-ups, you're rolling up your companies and basketing them and bundling them up to be sold to a private equity company. And then also you have internal reorganizations and you need to keep your options open. And often there are conflicts of interest in those transactions. So even though there are smaller zeros behind those deals, the same rules.

So remember to build the record. We're talking about independent valuations, like we're talking about 409A valuations, document arm's length terms and transactions. So let's say you're a contractor for one of your companies in which you hold a majority. Make sure you're keeping track of your board minutes. That's also essential for you to protect against the piercing of the corporate veil. And make sure you're showing real independent review. This is where having

Independent directors comes into play. if you have board approvals that reflect independent judgment, that's going to help you when it comes to building your record against conflicted transactions. Your paper trail is your defense. And if minority investors want to any against you in terms of breaching your fiduciary duties, you want to be able to show that you actually have been playing by the rules and that you are operating.

with some semblance of independent judgment. You also want to make sure you're policing your inner company agreements. We're talking about IP licenses, shared services, transfer pricing between your entities. We know that that happens often where you might have a company servicing one of your other companies, but they need to be on market terms.

We see this often with management services organizations and professional corporations. Make sure you're engaging on terms that are fair market value, and that way you can protect your minority shareholders.

Now there's a secret weapon at your disposal, which is called the F Reorg. And this is a clean way that most founders will insert a holding company before a deal. But it is very complicated and it deserves its own episode. So we're gonna save that for the next episode.

There is a lot to learn from this deal. And so we want you to take a look at this not just because of the size and scale and kind of look at it as something distant and far away. We want you to pull some very important secret governance rules and lessons from this deal.

Pankaj Raval (13:14)
No, no, I think I Sahil, yeah, it's a great recap because I think also we didn't want to gloss over the fact that he's poised to become our first trillionaire, you know? And what does that mean, in the context of capitalism and our economy. Do we want more trillionaires out there? Is that good? Is that bad? I'll let you guys think about that. When someone has a trillion dollars, but then the average person is making twenty nine thousand dollars a

Sahil Chaudry (13:22)
Right.

Pankaj Raval (13:34)
is that a just society? That is a big question. But ethical and moral issues aside, Elon Musk has created a lot of value for a lot of people. And I think, love him or hate him, or ambivalent about him, whatever, however you feel, he has really taken some big swings. and this is another big swing that he's and he's managed to like gather enough cachet

behind his brand and who he is and what he's been able to do with these companies, with Tesla and everything else. and he's made a lot of false promises. He's made a lot of, misstatements over the years, but apparently that's allowed him to do well. So yeah.

Sahil Chaudry (14:05)
point. And

that's in the context of negative cash flow. ⁓ And it is surprising. It's gonna make him the world's first It also shows the power of capital in the sense that a lot of these projects wouldn't be possible without aggregating capital in this way and organizing it in this way. He's talking about colonizing.

Pankaj Raval (14:09)
Yeah.

Thank you.

Sahil Chaudry (14:23)
the interplanetary system. He's talking AI. also interesting, we talked about this in our last episode about how he lost his battle against Open AI. And yet at the same time, he's winning here. He's about to become the first trillionaire. And the other thing that I've heard him say is that his belief that money eventually will become meaningless.

Which is kind of a shocking statement from someone who's about to cut become the world's first trillionaire. Yeah. Yeah, it's easy to say money doesn't buy happiness when you're the world's first trillionaire.

Pankaj Raval (14:46)
Yeah, he's a trillionaire. Easy to say that. Easy to say that when you're a trillionaire.

I think it's probably very easy to lose perspective. And we'll see. I think it's true also about money buying happiness, because I feel like he's got a lot of issues to deal with still as he navigates this world that he's into. But I think you're right. I think one thing I think

all the listeners out there, if you want to play, I think, these highest levels and what we see for our bigger clients, it's access to capital, right? lot of these businesses, especially larger tech businesses, they survive on capital and leverage to get to the next level and try to beat out all the competitors. At this level, they're just trying to spend as much as possible to outspend

And outgrow their competitors as quickly as possible. And it shows you like it's a different world that they're living in. But if you want to play in that world, I think you've got to understand capital. And funny enough, if you look at a lot of the CEOs, Jeff Bezos and many others came from investment banking. If you look at the number of CEOs that actually are investment bankers or have some connection to investment banking, it's pretty high. And I believe that is because they understand.

how capital works and how leverage works and I think that's the name of the game here.

Sahil Chaudry (15:57)
That's

a great point. When we look at valuations, a valuation is something that gives you a multiple debt. And so I think the companies that we've seen do very well, even amongst our clients, are the ones that understand how that capital multiplies, how you take something that is valued today, but you are actually building towards a future that has a multiple of your current share price. And even understanding how that's going to serve you

to accomplish projects that you cannot do alone. I think a lot of small businesses start off as a shop or as a small software company, and you are operating on a business model that relies on you, that relies on your product, that relies on a specific margin. But what we've seen is the companies that really scale and grow, they're generally associated with founders who understand capital and the multiplication effect of that

Pankaj Raval (16:47)
Absolutely. So Sahil, with that, let's pivot, before we to segment three, I did want to give a little shout out to a event that Carbon Law Group has been sponsoring called Founder Basketball. If you play basketball, if you're interested in playing basketball, if you're a founder, if you're building a company, entrepreneur, then this could be a great event for you. We're hosting two more events in LA. next one I believe is July seventeenth.

around that And we last one was in downtown LA and it was a lot of fun. A lot of great founders, a lot of great companies featured their products. And we got together and played basketball and got to know each other and it was a really fun event. So if this is something that you'd be interested in, be sending out information on our newsletter. We'll post a link to sign up for our newsletter in our show notes. Or you can always reach out to us and for that information. We'll be happy to send it to you.

But it's called a Founder's Basketball they're on Instagram as well as LinkedIn. So we encourage you to, look out for that if that's of interest.

Sahil Chaudry (17:38)
Pankaj I think we're gonna need to see some content of that on the Carbon Law Group Instagram account. So please out there. I mean I heard I heard you played. I heard I heard you're involved, I heard you're involved.

Pankaj Raval (17:43)
I think we do yes, we need to get more of that out there. ⁓

Yeah, I played. Yeah, I played. I played decently well. Yeah, I played decently well.

Scored scored scored, probably, three to five points, of the games, you know, so each game. So the games were two ten. So yeah, I mean my shot was was dropping that day, you know. I I felt good. I felt good. know, I

Sahil Chaudry (18:03)
about the

NBA finals. You want to plug into the Founder's Basketball League and you want to plug into Carbon Law Group. We're taking it home. We've got our team captain here. So make sure that you connect on that. If you love to play basketball, or you just want to meet founders and you love business.

Pankaj Raval (18:08)
Yeah. Exactly.

Yeah, absolutely. Not everyone there was playing. A lot of people are just kind of talking to people on the sidelines getting to know the different brands that are featuring their products there. A lot of really cool brands. There was like a protein ice cream brand, there was a special like popcorn brand, there is a kind of fizzy wine brand. So yeah, a lot of really cool brands there too. So you have any interest, please reach out and we'll be happy to pass on the information. With that said, we're pivoting to segment three, we're bringing it home.

With another shot fired in the world of AI and partners. So today we're reporting that CNN has filed a lawsuit against Perplexity. Perplexity, if you guys are not aware, is similar to Chat GPT, more of like a wrapper for Chat GPT and Claude.

But it provides its own kind of news aggregating service. it does a really good job of kind of searching the web and providing unique resources. it's a multi-billion dollar just as OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times, CNN is suing Perplexity because it allegedly scraped 17,000 plus CNN stories, videos, and images to power its answer engine.

Delivering identical or substantially similar content in real time. So Sahil, this is comprised of two claims, not one. So the copyright infringement and trademark infringement. CNN says perplexity falsely implied an active content relationship with CNN in its advertising. However, that didn't happen. CNN's first lawsuit against the AI company, and believed to be the first in any TV network any TV networks, CNN says it to license.

perplexity last year and the talks failed. So then what happened? Perplexity went ahead and did it themselves, without even getting the license. And that's the rub here. Perplexity's defense is that they said that you can't copyright facts. And this is a defense we see all the time, especially when it comes to

However, while you can't copyright facts, you can copyright the aggregation of facts, how they're displayed, how they're presented. And I'm sure that's what CNN is gonna be claiming here. it definitely sounds like perplexity's in the wrong here. we'll have to see, how this all fleshes out. likely there will be a settlement, perplexity is gonna be forced, probably license the work that it took without the proper

it's not a good look when, they enter into licensing talks, those licenses fail, and then they go ahead and they try to go around company and use the data anyway. So yeah, go ahead.

Sahil Chaudry (20:24)
So perplexity

is claiming fair use here. ⁓ what does that mean and does that apply?

Pankaj Raval (20:30)
Yeah, so fair use essentially there's four factors in in when you're looking at fair use. have to look at like the nature and extent of the use, how it's being used, is it commercial or non commercial? is it educational? Is it newsworthy? So, I haven't read their entire response here, but they could argue that yeah, there's newsworthy information that they're commenting on it, but I think they fail

with the fair use argument because they are using this in a commercial purpose. They're making money off it, right? if you're making this much money off it, generally the law says that, okay, yeah, if you're making money, you should be able to pay a license. You should pay a royalty for using information. And it's not just for educational or newsworthy purposes. you're generating money and therefore you should pay the license fee or get the rights. So I have a feeling that, CNN is gonna be in the right,

CNN's got so much content it is really valuable and I'm sure that's what wanted to use. But they spend a lot of money on that content. So why shouldn't they be able to charge for it and get a fair royalty for it? So we'll have to see what happens, but this is not the only case out there we see of a content aggregate a content provider, content creator, news service, whether it be video or

suing an AI company for illegally scraping its

Sahil Chaudry (21:35)
There is a bad fact

in here for perplexity, which is that CNN actually did try to negotiate for a license with perplexity and perplexity declined. And then CNN says, well, perplexity just kept scraping. And once you've said no, the continued use does look willful. So I think that fact is gonna emerge and play a role in the actual analysis.

Pankaj Raval (21:51)
Exactly.

Yeah, exactly. And I think, if you're a smaller company and you do have a lot of data, so I think there's two takeaways here too from this, Sahil, is that if you are creating content, if you're unique content that is valuable, you want to think about how you can leverage that in the future, right? If you are creating something new and unique and providing unique insights on what's going on in the world,

AI companies are gonna interested in that, and you could have the potential to license that content. So that's something you want to think about as a content creator, developer, aggregator. If you have unique data, think about how you can leverage that in many different ways now and potentially have enter into multiple license agreements with different entities to make the most from the content you're creating and two is that if you are going up against one of these companies recognize that they may in fact

do what they want anyways. And then are you going to have the wherewithal to sue them and to go after them for using your data? So maybe it's better to have a deal where you get seventy percent of what you want rather than a hundred percent than having to fight. And they probably know that too, and it's an unfortunate fact, but something to keep in mind.

Sahil Chaudry (22:53)
Yeah, I'm thinking we are on the cusp of a lot of legal battles when it comes to who owns what with AI. This standard of if it's human expression, it's copyrightable. If it's not, then that it's not, that is still a very blurry line. I'm pretty concerned that there are gonna be a lot of startups that use a lot of third party data through AI and

that's the moat, and that's not a real moat. I think that we're gonna see a lot more court cases that are going to further define what the line is, but there's gonna be some collateral damage. There are gonna be some companies that go all in on content coming from AI and they're gonna get hurt in the process, but

there are going to be courts that are going to come in and say, well, actually, you don't own that data. You can't monetize that data. You can monetize part of it, but you can't monetize the, for example, the expression that's coming from somebody else. And yet today, think people are increasingly moving away from primary sources and they're going to Chat GPT, they're going to Claude, and they're just asking for the answer. Hey, what happened between Iran and Israel today? What happened with Trump today? What happened.

in the markets today. And I think very few people, or not very few, but increasingly you're gonna see that over surveying and reading primary sources, which is probably what CNN is worried about. It's like, hey, wait a is anybody gonna be coming to my website anymore? Or am I forced to now plug my data in through one of these funnels, one of these AI platforms?

Pankaj Raval (24:10)
Right.

Right. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. So yeah, let's tie this all together, Sahil. So yeah, we've got three distinct stories, but I think there's one common theme and help us understand how does this make sense for small businesses and scaling companies.

Sahil Chaudry (24:21)
Yeah, I mean

Pankaj, I think here's the lesson. What you own matters, and you need to paper that. We look at Taylor Swift. This could have been solved by her team doing a search for Life of a Showgirl. I'm positive Confessions of a Showgirl would have come up. It was a registered trademark in 2015. Now this is costing a lot of money, and it's not a sure thing that she's going to win.

Taylor Swift has spent a ton of money branding her Life of a Showgirl tour, and she might not even be able to use the name. That could have been solved by a USPTO trademark search.

When we're talking about Elon Musk, we're talking about protecting minority shareholders. We're talking about not breaching your fiduciary duties. when we're talking about Elon Musk, we're talking about making sure you're papering your equity investments.

When we're talking about Elon Musk, we're talking about the power of capital. We're talking about being able to build by having a clean cap table. That means you need to paper each of your equities. that means you need to paper each of the investments that comes into your company. You need to know what the fair market value is at each of your price rounds. And you need to make sure that it's clean because that's what's going to allow you to raise more money, access more capital, and do bigger projects.

And finally, talking about AI, what do you own? You need to check your contracts. You need to make sure that if you're using AI content with AI, it's not the Wild West anymore with CNN versus perplexity. Perplexity is sucking up data from all over the internet. And most of these AI platforms are doing that, and you're using that data too. Know what you own and know what you don't own.

And when it comes to your own contracts and you're feeding data into a platform or you're feeding data into a company, when you're feeding data into an AI platform, you need to know what data are you offering up to its training models? What data do you no longer own anymore? We see this a lot with entertainment and actors who are now signing contracts and unknowingly giving away their name, image, and likeness in perpetuity. So today.

AI is no longer the Wild West, but the contracts are a minefield. And when you're reviewing a contract and there's an AI company involved, you don't want to give up all your rights. You want to make sure you're licensing what you own. And if you're using AI data, you need to be clear about what you own and what you don't own. You need to be clear that your human expression is what you own, but the rest of it is really up for grabs right now.

Pankaj Raval (26:59)
Absolutely. So with that said, are letters of intent. appreciate you all joining us and spending your time with us. We know your time is valuable and we hope this information is valuable. We are the law firm at Carbon Law Group for deal makers and risk takers. We are supporting entrepreneurs and growing companies, scale quickly. if they're gonna break things, do it in a way that doesn't cause you too much distress.

and shoot for the stars and if you're Elon Musk maybe shoot for Mars. Until next time, we appreciate you joining us and you can always like, follow, share for more. drop us a line in the comments if you want to hear more information on something or if you want to find out more about what we're doing or have any questions about your own business. We always love to hear from our listeners and we thank you again for joining us.

Sahil Chaudry (27:42)
And make sure you tune in next week where we're gonna size up the next three newsiest, hottest, buziest deals and break down how they apply to you. Thank you for joining us on this episode of Letters Intent, the podcast for deal makers and risk