Paramount Was Denied

Welcome back everyone. Today on the Joseph Carlson Show, Paramount has officially been denied. And Warner Brothers Discovery. Is now saying that Larry Ellison and especially his son David Ellison, not only were they a little bit dishonest and misleading with the way that they presented their deal on CNBC. But they were straight up. Lying. They're basically just saying mistruths, in fact.

From Warner Brothers Discovery. Some of the things that they outline the the board when they went over the deal. Is they say that it's. Quote illusionary, meaning it's basically fabricated. Most of the deal doesn't even exist. It's not reliable. There's no way to actually pin Paramount down to a deal. O this headline from the Wall Street Journal is actually an understatement. Warner didn't just reject Paramount's hostile bid, they outlined it as a fabricated lie.

And in this episode, we'll be going over that entire letter, the full thing from Warner Brothers Discovery, outlining why they believe that Paramount's being so dishonest. What they actually believe is. Wrong with their proposal and the deal with Netflix and why they believe that's actually a much stronger deal we also have an interview with the CEO of Netflix explaining this deal why he. Believes it will go through. Regulation and why they're even doing it in the first. Place.

What do they see? In this asset of Warner Discovery and HBO Now, we know that Larry Ellison is not happy about this. He wants to own this asset. He's trying to get money from everyone he can, including the Saudis. And although the Saudis have kept in the deal so far, Jared Kushner, one of the. Backers of this deal has dropped out. And we even have Paramount going out today saying that they're standing by their deal and Warner Brothers discoveries

being unfair. With their criticism, we'll. Be looking at Paramount's reply and the big thing that they're leaving out. So this is a huge. Developing story, especially for someone like me that's invested in Netflix that still. Believes this is a great. Investment. After all, I just. Recently bought $10,000 more of the stock and two $5000 purchases. So I'm invested in this company. I'll be going over how I see this playing out. And of course, we have a lot of other news as well.

We have Tom Lee going on to CNBC. Tom Lee is bearish. For the first time in a long time, we'll be going over why he's concerned. About the first. Half of 2026 we have Mark Mahaney outlining why. He still believes that Google. Should be in your portfolio as one of the top picks on the subject of Netflix. We also have them now entering into the game of podcast, bringing on many of the biggest podcasts in the world in video format on the Netflix

subscription exclusively. And then finally, we get to our fail of the week. In this case, we have director Carl Rynch. He was found guilty of swindling Netflix out of $11 million in one of the. Craziest stories that I've ever read. This is a director that. Took money to make a movie, but instead of making the movie he did a lot of other things with that money so we have a ton to get to in this episode let's go ahead and jump in now as we start things off, I think it's

important to catch you up on this developing story. If you've missed some of the. Previous episodes I'll just quickly. Go over what's happened so far. So far we've had Warner. Brothers discovery with their iconic. Assets of HBO The HBO. Max subscription service and Warner Studios, which is a maker of mini massive films, ones like Dune or Tenet. It's an incredible asset. It's one of the. Biggest legacy assets? It's one of the iconic movie makers and they. Decided to sell because they're.

Struggling financially, they have enormous amounts of debt and. David Zaslav believes that there. Needs to be some level of consolidation when they put the company up for sale. There is numerous bidders including Comcast, Paramount and Netflix and a few others. But the ones that were taken the most seriously were Paramount and Netflix. They're the ones that were offering the best terms and the

highest bids. Warner Brothers Discovery ultimately decided to go with Netflix, believing that their bid was. Superior, so they locked. In on that bid, they signed an agreement. Now Netflix is in agreement. They have a formal contract signed to buy the Warner Brothers Studios and HBO assets. They're not going to buy the cable assets that's going to be packaged and sold separately. Now, Paramount, of course, is not happy about this. They believe that they should

own the assets. And the son of Larry Ellison, who is David Ellison, is especially not happy about this. He threw a fit. He said that. This is something where they didn't take our bid seriously. They didn't, really. Treat us fairly. They decided to just go with Netflix without even looking at what we're offering. David Ellison, in fact, felt so strongly. That his bid was superior. And that paramount should be the rightful. Owner of Warner Brothers Discovery.

That he went on to CNBC explaining why they're now doing a tender offer. This is a hostile bid. Paramount's trying to bypass. The board of Warner Brothers Discovery. And the executive team saying we're not going to go to you, we're going to go to the. Biggest shareholders of Warner Brothers. Discovery and appeal directly to them, saying ignore the board, ignore the. Executives, take our offer. And here he is making some of the. Case of why his offer was superior.

By every metric you can look at, we believe that our offer is superior to shareholders. Now again, he's on national television making his case because so far, Warner Brothers doesn't agree with him. They're in contract with Netflix. And he continues on detailing out why Paramount's is better. We made the highest offer for the company, $30 in cash is more than 23. So you see some of the ways that he misrepresents. The truth. The truth.

Is that when you break up the math between the stock and the cash and what they're actually buying, Netflix's offer is actually just as competitive. In fact, it may actually be much more than David Ellison's, but the way that he frames a deal is incredibly misleading. And this is. Exactly the type of. Problem that Warner Brothers Discovery pointed out in their. Press release today if you. Just read the Wall Street Journal. You'll miss some of the most important things.

That the Warner Brothers discovery. Team is saying it doesn't accurately relay it, so instead we're going to go. Straight to the source. This is the exact letter. That they're giving to their shareholders the problem with Paramount. 'S deal is what's. Underneath the surface, the stuff you're not seeing, Paramount's most recent proposal includes $40.65 billion in equity commitments for which there is no Ellison family commitment of any kind instead.

They propose that you rely. On an unknown, opaque, revocable trust for the certainty of this crucial deal funding despite having been told. Repeatedly by Warner Brothers. Discovery how important a full and unconditional financing commitment from the Ellison family was and despite their own ample. Resources as well as multiple. Assurances by Paramount during the strategic review. Process. That such a commitment was forthcoming, the Ellison family has chosen not to backstop

Paramount's offer. So basically David Ellison is going on TV saying, look, our offers like a sure thing. We have the Ellison family trust behind it. Like the second most rich person in the world, Larry Ellison is behind this deal. And that's not true when you actually get down to what is actually backing this. Offer. It's completely revocable. The deal was never backstopped by the Ellison family. They never put their family's assets on the line for this deal. They say a revocable.

Trust is no. Replacement for a secured. Commitment by a controlling stakeholder. The assets and liabilities of a trust are not publicly disclosed and are subject to change. As the name indicates, revocable trust typically have provisions allowing for the assets to be moved at any time. And the documents provided by. Paramount for this conditional commitment contains gaps, loopholes and limitations that put you, the shareholder and our company at risk. They're basically saying that

this. Trust is opaque. We don't even know what's in it. And they have the ability to move assets in and out of it anytime they want. So when you hear news that the. Warner Brothers Discovery. Team has concerns about the funding of this deal offered by Paramount. They're not saying that. They're concerned that the Saudis are included in the deal. That's not really highlighted concern here.

What they've pointed out so far is the specific contract that the Ellison's family money is not backing this. Deal that they're. Using every way they can to be able to get out of this deal at any point, if anybody. Backs out of it. That they have enormous means, The Ellison family and David Ellison and Larry Ellison, They could put their entire family trust irrevocably behind this deal, and they're not. Now they contrast. The Warner Brothers Discovery proposal.

With the Netflix deal, Warner's merger agreement with Netflix is a binding agreement with enforceable commitments with no need for an equity financing and robust debt commitments. The Netflix merger is. Fully backed by a public. Company with a market cap in excess of $400 billion with an investment grade balance sheet. The debt financing a Paramount bid relies on unsecured revocable trust commitments as well as the creditworthiness of a $15 billion market cap.

Company with a credit rating at or only above junk. The financial condition and creditworthiness of Paramount which if this proposed transaction were to close. So if they were to close the deal with. Paramount they would have high. Gross leverage ratio. Of 6.8 * 2026 debt to EBITDA Now what they're doing here? What Warner Brothers Discovery Board. Is doing here is entirely fair. This is the exact. Way that you look at. Leverage you compare the long term debt to next year's. EBITDA.

As a quick rule of thumb, any debt to EBITDA ratio above 3 is concerning. It means that the company's in a very difficult financial situation. Any company that's below. A three is probably OK. That means that they can probably sustain their debt without too much hassle. Now, not only do they have one above 3, there's a 6.8 meaning based on 2026's estimated EBITDA, if this transaction closed, they would have 6.8 times the long term debt of that EBITDA.

That would put them in a severely disadvantaged state. They'd have incredible interest obligations on that debt. Now just for comparison, if we were to bring up Netflix and do analysis on the exact same ratio that they're using for Paramount, Netflix is trailing EBITDA is about $30 billion and their current net debt as of today, meaning their cash minus their debt is $5 billion, Netflix's debt to EBITDA. Would likely be below 2. Meaning that in two years of.

EBITDA they could pay off. All their outstanding debt. If they so chose to. That also means that Netflix will be able to invest in the industry. They'll be able to create more content. They won't be weighed down by enormous interest payments that they can't afford, and that's not the situation that Paramount would be in if. They bought Warner Brothers Discovery. On the. Surface of it, this deal is bad. For the industry if Warner Brothers. Discovery gets sold to.

Paramount They will be swamped with debt, so outlining the capital structure and the vulnerabilities is an important thing to do. They say that such debt levels reflect a risky. Capital structure that is vulnerable to even potentially small changes in the Paramount or Warner Brothers business between signing and closing.

So if anything was to happen to any of the funding sources, this is a fragile agreement between these two companies and it's very robust and strong between them and Netflix, they say. Additionally, Paramount contemplates 9. Billion dollars worth of. Synergies. Netflix, on the other hand, is only contemplating around 3 billion and the synergies mean that they can fire people, they can get rid of people. Because of course there's. Actually more overlap with the Paramount and Warner.

Brothers Discovery Studios both. Of them are major. Hollywood studios, if they. Combine it will be 1 company owning 2 studios, which of course they're going to completely scrap so many employees they'll fire so many of them to cut costs. Netflix won't be doing that because Netflix as of now has no big box office studio. They have no asset like Warner Brothers Discovery, so they have far less synergy, meaning they're going.

To fire far fewer people. And in the process, they'll actually grow the company because they. Have the capital to do. So instead of servicing enormously. High levels of leverage. Even outside of how? Bad this offer is. For the Warner Brothers. Discovery shareholder it's also. Terrible for the industry. This would be something where they would have to cut so many costs.

The amount of synergies or cutting costs and slashing laying off employees would be incredibly intense to make this deal work once they realize that they're swamped by debt, that they don't have the cash. Flows to be able to support this deal. They are going to cut costs like there's no tomorrow and what was 2 Studios, Warner Brothers Discovery and Paramount Pictures will be 1. Warner has highlighted Paramount's offer, calling it illusory. Now.

Illusory means. That it's like fabricated it's. Not real. It doesn't actually exist. That's the. That's what the word means. They're saying their offer just isn't real. The offer can be terminated or amended by Paramount at any time prior to its completion. It is not the same thing as a binding merger agreement. The 1st. Paragraph of the offer states. Quote subject to the conditions set forth in this offer to purchase as it may be amended or

supplemented from time to time. We reserve the right. To amend the offer in any respect, including amending. The offer price. In addition, the offer is not capable of being completed by its current expiration date due to the need for, among other things. Global regulatory approvals. Which Paramount indicates may take 12 to 18 months. So that's Warner Brothers

overall. Take on Paramount's offer they call it dishonest, misleading they say that it's not a real offer it can be changed at any point they even. Say that it's false to say that the. Ellison family is backing this offer. They're not. And they contrast it with Netflix, which is completely binding. And it's backed by a $400 billion market cap company. Netflix hasn't given itself a. A backdoor exit to the.

Offer And we also have news that as this is going on Jared Kushner has apparently dropped out of this second proposal so we already have parties looking at this and and fleeing this deal I don't want to be part of this this is becoming a mess they're backing out of it now Paramount of course just minutes ago they released. This write up did they say? That their offer is binding. Did they say that it's backed by

the Ellison family? The answer is no. And again, you have Paramount not addressing the actual concerns to the Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders and the board. This. Simply shows that they're just going to have to up their offer, they're going to have to come back with a much better offer they're going to have. To up at like 5. Dollars per share and they're going to have to actually. Address the. Equity funding concerns making the. Offer irrevocable.

Making it a binding agreement exactly like Netflix has. So not only does the. Offer have to be higher. But it has to be binding. In that case, they have. A shot. They really come back to the table and they up the. Offer by 4 or $5. They make it a binding agreement. They really. Do back it with the. Ellison family wealth, not some. Opaque, revocable trust. That you can move money in and out of any time but they're.

Actually, their actual wealth. Then that would be something that the Warner Brothers Discovery team would listen to. But so. Far, Netflix has shown a bigger willingness to be way more straightforward, way more truthful. You have an offer that's better on paper, not only is it better on. Paper, but it's also better. For the industry as a whole, again, if Netflix ends up buying HBO and Paramount, they actually have the financial strength to manage their.

Huge debt load. They can do that, Paramount can't a 7 times. EBITDA ratio. Is insane. I would never invest in a company with that level of debt. Not even close. I start getting nervous when it's passed three times. So it's also just. Better for the industry now if Netflix. Does get past this whole? Paramount drama If Paramount finally throws in the towel and gives up and doesn't continue to raise the bid, they they might

raise the bid. So I'm not saying they won't do that, but if they finally do get past it, it looks like Netflix is going forward with it. Netflix has the challenge of now appeasing the regulators, showing why this is going to be good for consumers, why it's going to be good for the industry, why it's going to be good for competition overall. And that is a very daunting challenge, many people. Have highlighted that this. Looks like it's an unfair deal.

It's unfair to the consumer because Netflix will own so much and Greg Peters, the CEO of the company, tries to frame. How they look through the. Lens of competition and tries to frame what they're actually dealing with. Yeah. We believe the regulatory process will ultimately conclude based on the facts, and we feel those facts really support the approval of the deal. We're confident regulators will ultimately see this as pro consumer, pro creator, pro worker, pro growth, pro

innovation and pro competition. You, you know, came up with a few examples of how you might define the market. We look at, you know, the market definition in a couple of different ways. A key one for our side is just, you know, who's winning TV view share. And I think if you look at that, we're way low in the rankings. We're six behind Google and YouTube, behind Disney, behind Comcast, NBC, Fox, Paramount. Even then, we put, you know, HBO Max and HBO on top of the Netflix viewing.

That still puts us behind YouTube and Disney. This is one of those things where a lot. Of people like to pipe. In and say hey Netflix doesn't compete with YouTube because YouTube is user generated content and Netflix is professional content. So what? Why does that mean they don't compete? You don't think that channels like mine aren't stealing viewership from cable television? Like you don't think that that channels just like mine all across YouTube are a challenge

for legacy cable television? Where do you think viewer eyes are going? Netflix is directly competitive to YouTube. They always have been, going back years and years. They've always. Highlighted YouTube as a direct. Competitor. So this new talking point for many. People where they say YouTube really isn't a competitor. Because they have a different kind of content. I think it is just frankly. A a super weak ridiculous.

Argument When you sit down to watch television on your TV now with smart TV's and Apple TV's and Roku's and you know all that stuff built in. Now you're choosing between YouTube, Paramount, HBOESPN app, you're choosing between all these services. You have them all displayed right on your TV and you can choose any one of them that you want. And in many cases people are choosing YouTube in fact. As the father of three.

If I sit my kids down and I give them the option to watch Netflix. Or watch YouTube. They will pick YouTube. 10 times out of 10, YouTube will win every single time. To say that that's not competitive to Netflix is frankly ridiculous. Netflix is competing for TV watch time, so other people competing for TV watch time are competitors.

YouTube is a competitor to Netflix even if they make different types of content, and that goes the same for all these type of companies they're all competing with. With each other for watch. Time you can include cable television. Cable television has been losing in the competition, but they're a competitor nonetheless. Now he goes on to outline a different type of market. This time, it's not just who's competing for watch time, but.

Who's the buyer? Of this type of content, one of the arguments that the government will make is that you can't become too big of a buyer. Meaning, if you're going to make a movie, you can't only have one person be the buyer of that. Movie otherwise where will people go to sell a big. Budget movie if Netflix owns the entire movie business. And that's another concern that he addresses.

We also think, you know, when you think about the number of buyers that are out there on the creator side, we've got new buyers coming in like Amazon, Apple, we've got the fast services, you know, like 2B. So there's just. He accurately highlights that. Even on the buying side, Netflix wouldn't be the only. Buyer for high budget prestige. Content, you have companies like Amazon that are pushing heavily in that, that have virtually unlimited budgets.

As well as Apple where that is specifically. Their bread and butter apple. TV is specifically for high. Quality prestige content, big box office movies like the Formula One movie that they just made. So right now there's a lot of uncertainty, but Netflix is 1 big step closer to actually getting this deal. What we're waiting for now is if Paramount comes.

Back with a higher offer. I do think there's a pretty good chance they'll do that in any case, no matter which way I look at Netflix. I just recently bought another $10,000 worth of the stock and I now have it as a $120,000 position. It's a massive position and I feel good having it there. I'm looking at the long term. I'm looking at the next 10 to 20 years. I want to own companies that I think.

Will be very, very heavy. Companies I see a day when Netflix is above a trillion dollar market cap, I really do.

So this is one that I like owning. Now moving on to some news. We had Tom Lee go on to CNBC and recently make a statement that's a bit different than what he typically does. Tom Lee is typically. The very bullish guy, always. Bullish and he's still bullish, so don't get me wrong, he's not completely changing directions. But he is giving more warnings now than he typically does. Next year there is 2 puts. There's the White House put

still in play and the Fed put. I think it's going to come back. People sort of forgot like it's been dead for three years. It's really going to come back and forth. But it will take maybe the first half of the year to get through that because we don't have a new Fed in the first half. So I think the first half next year could be down 10 to 15% and then a big recovery. Now he's predicting a 10 to 15% sell off, which would be substantial. That's almost entering into a bear market.

It's very similar to what we had. Early this year, but that was because of the the whole tariff. Fiasco in April. He does mention again that. He sees that as a. Short term thing because he believes a new Fed chair will come in that Trump appoints specifically to lower. Interest rates, which of course. Is interest rates go down, assets become inflated assets, meaning stocks. So money moves more into stocks. It moves out of cash as cash earns a lower yield overall.

I agree with this thesis. Overall, I believe it's going to be very beneficial to have your money in assets that go up as interest rates go down. And that's why a lot of My Portfolio still remains in companies like S&P Global or Moody's or Equifax ones, where as interest rates go down, they benefit in a lot of meaningful ways. Now moving on, we get to an interview with Mark Mahaney.

He talks again, trying to convince investors to not give up on. Google just because the stock. Price went up. He outlines why he believes this could again be proven to be another winner in 2026. I think the real opportunity was it was so oversold. I'm not sure it's overbought. I don't think it is. I think it kind of hold its multiple. It's kind of at the high end of the mag 7 in terms of the multiples, but I think it can hold it.

And now it's a compounder, which means I think they can grow 20% a year. So the stock's got that sort of upside. It's not dramatic, but you know, it's a name that you want to stick with because they've kind of proven everything they sort of needed to prove, which is that they're successful up and down the tech stack. What else could get much better about Google? I, I think that there's a chance for a reacceleration in revenue at search at YouTube. Waymo's still building out and

clouds going to be north of 40%. I think that kind of growth next year. So I just like the fundamental setup in it. If you're if you're a long term investor, you stick with the Google. Absolutely right. Investors should be sticking with Google. The stock is far more. Accurately valued today so. It's far more appropriately priced, but I don't believe that you should invest where as. Soon as the stock. Gets more appropriately priced

to its fundamentals. Appropriately priced with strength that you bail on the stock. If you look throughout. History. There's time periods where good companies look like they're. Fair value or they're even overvalued. Only to continue to grow organically very strong in the future. And as he highlights accurately here again, Google remains stronger today than it's ever been. They're they're just nailing it. Their execution remains impeccable.

They're putting out more products, more real things for consumers than any other company that I see. There's a storyline of YouTube, Waymo, Cloud, Gemini, all the Google. Search features that are. Coming out plus all these different things, the Google Glasses that they're coming out with that are like the meta ones there's. A lot of other little side bets. There's longshot bets that Google. Is doing as well that they still have.

Working on now, he does highlight some of the challenges that could cause Google to go down in the short term and he. Highlights what those will likely. Be in 2026, you're going to get a new ad model at some point or you're just going to get an ad model coming out of ChatGPT. So there's going to be real competition coming after search dollars. We haven't seen it yet, but it's coming. So you got like a one or two pending negative catalyst. I don't think it takes the stock

down a lot. And if it did, it'd be a great opportunity to leg into Google stock. Remember when ChatGPT was planning on doing that? But then Gemini 3 came out and they said that we have a Code Red. We have to push back those plans of integrating ads and instead of focus on the quality of our product. Well, that code Red is not going to last forever. Eventually they're going to say,

OK, we need the ad dollars. We're going to make it so ads are baked into ChatGPT. When that happens, of course, that's going to be more direct competition with Google. And you might hear the the naysayers, you might hear the pessimists come out when that point happens. He says it if the. Stock drops if sentiment gets lower, if the multiple contracts. That of course, is a buying opportunity. So as far as Mark Mahaney's concerned, continue holding

Google and buy any dips. Now, moving on, we get to the

news that Netflix continues their streak. They're on a roll here, acquiring content and moving aggressively across across different verticals. This time they're pushing into podcasts. Now this is something that we've heard Netflix kind of toy around with for a while, but it hasn't really been that official. Now it's official Netflix. Strikes a deal with. IHeartMedia on video podcasts. So they're bringing exclusively some of the biggest video podcasts in the world onto the

Netflix platform. They're bringing on a whole new type of media, one that is historically hosted on companies like iHeartMedia, Spotify. Or YouTube. But now it's on Netflix. We also have Dave Portnoy from Barstool doing this announcement today. Emergency press conference time. If you haven't heard the news, I'm proud to announce that Barstool is partnered with Netflix for three of our top podcast exclusive video only on

Netflix starting next year. I'm talking you want to watch a video of part of my take Netflix. You want to watch a video of spit Chiclets Netflix? I actually spit there. That's just my brain. You want to watch a video of Ryan Rossello show Netflix Netflix Netflix. Dave Portnoy says it best there. Netflix, Netflix, Netflix. That seems like where a lot of media is going now. So I see this is making Netflix even more of a. Staple just a bit.

More of a must have of general entertainment, something that literally every household that wants entertainment at all, they're going to have a Netflix subscription now, finally as we

get. To the fail of the week we have yet. Another Netflix story. So this has been a Netflix theme today, but this one's a little bit different. This is not so centered around Netflix, but instead centered around one of their. Would be. Directors. His name is Carl Wrench, and he was.

The director of 47. Ronan, that was the one with Keanu Reeves. So he has a history in Hollywood. He's directed some cool movies before and it looks like he's going to be serving time in jail and one of my. Favorite subjects to go? Over is true crime and specific true financial crime. I like looking at. Stories of people like Trevor. Milton, Elizabeth Holmes, Bernie Madoff, different fraudsters and looking at what they did because eventually they do get caught

and. You have stories like this. This is the story of. Director Carl Rench, who This is an ongoing. Story, but so far he. Has been officially found guilty of swindling Netflix out of $11 million. Now this director, he's standing up in court and he's chalking. All this up to a. Simple misunderstanding, he's saying. Look guys, I didn't swindle you out of anything. We just had some miscommunications.

Money went the wrong direction in a few cases, but I didn't do anything wrong, just a just a misunderstanding. An $11 million misunderstanding happens all the time in business right now. The facts of the case make it look a little different than a simple misunderstanding. First of all, he has. Maintained that he completed principal photography on the first season of a show and needed the money. For pre.

Production on a season 2. So he's saying that he just needed the money for pre production. Different parts of the. Process of producing this content, But Netflix says they never ordered a second season and has said that the first was far from complete in closing arguments on Wednesday. Prosecutors argued that Rynch had. Deliberately concealed his motives for obtaining the money before going on a lavish spending spree and that. To believe otherwise would

require. Ignoring all evidence in the case at the time, the COVID pandemic was beginning to spread around the globe and according to the prosecution, Rynch gambled millions on Galette. This is a pharmaceutical company ultimately incurring steep losses. He also spent heavily on luxury cars, antique furniture and high end mattresses, among other extravagances. Daniel McGinnis, Rynch's defense lawyer. Argued that the luxury purchases were a red.

Herring and had no bearing on the case and that his clienteer Rynch was in a state of. Psychosis. So so when you. Are borrowing money from Netflix? When you're using that money to produce a film, you can throw it into stocks and buy expensive cars and furniture and then just claim that you're in a state. Of psychosis. Claim that you have some some mental thing going on and whoops to Daisy you spent $11 million on the wrong stuff. That's what the lawyer's.

Saying, but then Rynch himself is actually undercutting. What the lawyer's actually. Stating instead, Rynch testified that his purchases were entirely legitimate and that the Rolls Royce, for instance, were needed. For the show, prosecutors urged the jury. Not to buy it. He lied to you. He thought he could trick. You just like Netflix. Now of course, the jury didn't buy this BS and they found him guilty, so now he's awaiting sentencing. That will likely happen in April of next year.

So the story continues and we'll see what happens during sentencing. There's common themes amongst every single financial crime and probably the most common amongst all of them. One that's universally shared amongst almost every single financial crime is when you borrow someone else's money, or when you get a loan, or when you get money given to you for some reason, some specific stated

reason you actually. Have. To do with that money what you say we're going to do if you do something different that's illegal and that's what so many. Cases like this do they? Get money from someone, A bank? They get money from a studio, They get money from investors no matter what they're doing, they get money from other people on false premises and they do something different with that money. And it looks like it's going to be no different here for Carl Wrench.

Instead of using that $11 million to make a really cool show for Netflix and studies chosen to. Use it selfishly. Gamble with it, spend it on luxury goods and squander away along with his reputation and potentially landing himself jail time. So this was an epic failure in judgement, something that hopefully he won't do again after he's released from jail. Hopefully he's learned a good lesson. That's all for this time. See in the next one.