The Role of Private Investment in UK Defense

Episode Summary

With unprecedented defense spending commitments and a clear focus on innovation, the U.K. faces a critical question: How large of a role should private capital play? Host Jason Hewitt is joined by Air Marshal Andrew Turner, CEO of Saibre Capital and Space4Sight, and Mark Wheatley, founder of Delano Wheatley Consulting and DWC Technology. Together, they delve into the opportunities and challenges for private investment in the U.K.’s defense sector, with a particular focus on emerging dual-use technologies that bridge civilian and military applications. The discussion highlights the evolving attitudes toward ESG in defense investment, the need for politically aligned and patient capital, and the critical interplay between security and prosperity in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.

Voiceover (00:01):
From Skadden, you’re listening to Foreign Correspondent, an FDI podcast, where we discuss foreign direct investment reviews, and the foreign police, national security, and political issues that drive them. The cross-boarder investment screening insights you need start now.

Jason Hewitt (00:22):
Hi, and welcome to today’s Foreign Correspondent, Skadden’s FDI podcast. In today’s episode, we’re going to be unpacking private capital in the UK’s defense sector, including the role the private capital should play, key technologies with dual civil and military uses that present an opportunity for that private capital, and key hurdles for private investors in the space. We’re joined first up, by air marshal, Andrew Turner, from Saber Capital, our strategic advisory focused on UK national interest, and Space Foresight, a global space advisory. Andrew is CEO at both. He is also on a number of boards, including the National Quantum Strategic Advisory Board here in the UK, and prior to these roles, served in the Royal Air Force for four decades, ultimately as director of global military operations, and deputy chief of the service. Welcome, Andrew.

Andrew Turner (01:11):
Thank you. Great to be here.

Jason Hewitt (01:13):
We’re also joined by Mark Wheatley, founder of Delano Wheatley Consulting, and DWC Technology, which shape content in the community in key geopolitical subjects, from space to security, and advise clients on strategy through their sensitive senior recruitment. Mark also serves as a local politician here in the City of London, where he’s chaired a number of committees, including the Pensions Board. How are you, Mark?

Mark Wheatley (01:35):
Very well. Thank you, Jason.

Jason Hewitt (01:36):
Excellent. Well, thank you so much both for joining us. I’m Jason Hewitt. I advise on global foreign investment screenings and defense transactions here at Skadden, and lead our non-US foreign investment screening practice here in Europe. So I wanted to start with our first theme, the role of private capital in the defense space. What can it play? What should it play? We’ve all seen here, sitting in London, and sitting in Europe, a pretty radical shift in the defense procurement spend landscape. 5% NATO commitments, unprecedented spending, and a clear focus on innovation and emerging technologies. Andrew, what role do you see for private capital to play in that? And how is private capital’s role going to change with those strategies in mind?

Andrew Turner (02:20):
We’re approaching a really difficult period and era. The challenge on defense is only growing across the continent and around the world. The price of defense equipment is accelerating and growing all the time. And I think governments in the round have got a range of different and challenging priorities, whether it’s social reform, institutional, developmental or protection of the state, I think the private capital is one of the answers to this set of really difficult challenges. That’s to say, coming in with large amounts of infrastructure related capital in the main, but also developmental capital to help emerging technologies scale from their conceptual early ideas in a science laboratory, ultimately to a now a going concern in productive capacity.

Jason Hewitt (03:04):
And in that role as an enabler, Andrew, do you think that would change the returns for private capital investing in the defense space? It’s an area that has been a challenge historically for a lot of private investors.

Andrew Turner (03:17):
I think it will change a lot for small or medium enterprises. I think when government’s under pressure, it will always back the big, financially insulated prime contractors, who provide the large majority of the equipment to government, firstly. Secondly, I think it will help catalyze ideas coming out of universities and the innovation centers, which I think will be a phenomenal opportunity, given how many amazing idea and how much IP is created in the United Kingdom. But what’s really missing is the money to hold that from the laboratory to the battlefield. And I think thirdly, the expansion by using private capital will grow the size of the government investment over years, which itself will lead to jobs, and employment, social mobility. And it’ll contribute-

Jason Hewitt (04:01):
Mark, when you think about that from a city perspective, is there sufficient politically aligned capital with the appetite to invest here at the moment?

Mark Wheatley (04:09):
Well, I think you and Andrew are going right to the heart of the issue. We had an event in July, and Andrew was one of the key speakers. It’s part of a series we call Resilience, which is to some extent, trying to remoralize the city on these themes. The government aspiration to increase spending on defense and security is pretty much that in the short term. The figures are going to flow in medium term. And in the meantime, there isn’t much appetite for borrowing, there isn’t a great public appetite for taxation funding defense and security. Therefore, that turns eyes to the city. And in terms of political capital, we bounced straight into ESG conversations. Environmental, Social and Governance is quite a bread range of themes. And sometimes there are internal contradictions within those.

(04:53):
In city politics, I’ve seen those around. For example, acquisition of Chinese solar power capabilities. On the one hand, they tick an environmental box, but on the other, there are social and governance questions raised. And for defense, those points have been pretty sharp. I think ESG’s been a theme for city investors and financial service providers, generally. Bankers are included for about 20 years. And as you might expect, for some investors, armaments had been anathema, understandably so. If you’re a church pension fund, you are going to look at it as awkward to be investing in munitions. However, that kind of treatment of ESG as a red flag is thrown into attention by Ukraine, by foreign cyber intrustions to UK retail websites, by space activity, by Russian air intrusions on Estonia and elsewhere.

(05:43):
That has brought security right to the front of public conversation, so you see it more often on defense websites, and on news websites, and in defense and non-defense circles, including in the city, such that I think the mood is changing. Andrew sometimes says, whisper me against the tide. But again, I think Robert would welcome me saying this. There is an altar man in the City of London, who is also a leading investor at Rathbones. It’s a guy called Robert Hughes-Penney. He’s going straight to the heart of the moral case for investing in defense. And very much, it depends on national sovereignty. And in a really specific sense, ensuring that our servicemen and -women, if they’re ever in a sharp conflict, are properly supplied.

(06:24):

Because there is an absolutely moral case in ESG for saying that people who are upholding western liberal values, are not sent into a battlefield situation with incapable... And yeah, that, I think, is where ESG potentially could turn to a green flag. But at the very least, if we’re talking about bankers now being prepared to bank emerging technology businesses that are active in either dual use environments, or defense and security, that is to my mind, a good thing.

Jason Hewitt (06:50):
Yeah. I think it’s a great point, Mark. And I think what you call that there is that dual use space. There is a lot that’s going on, that a lot of that capital intensive work is actually in the emerging technology space. And dual use technologies that might see a lot of their revenue come from civilian applications, and not just military applications. ESG might always present some barrier for munitions, and certain kinds of lethal equipment. But it seems to me, and I know we’ll touch on some of the key technologies a little bit later in this conversation. It seems to me, that there’s a huge scope for investment in the dual use space, and civilian military fusion. Andrew, do you see an opportunity for those kinds of emerging technology players, to reach escape velocity and get into a post revenue state?

(07:35):
I think what we’ve seen a lot of, and I’d really welcome your thoughts on, what we’ve seen a lot of historically, is those kinds of laboratories and innovators, those players who are early on the TRS scale, have some great technology, but don’t have a pathway into defense and defense procurement. They ultimately find, the only pathway sits with the primes, and they get acquired at a pre-revenue valuation. Do you think there’s an opportunity for them through this shift in the procurement landscape, to escape that reach post-revenue, and the highs of post-revenue valuations?

Andrew Turner (08:06):
I think the point Mark raises are really interesting. My view would be that the prosperity that the state and the city in particular are hunting for, is firmly stood on the shoulders of security. And historically, people have taken this for granted, because we’re Post-Warsaw Pact Cold War peace dividend. That’s well and truly over. We’re seeing, whether it’s March 18 down in Salisbury, or the drone attacks in Gatwick. And later that same year, we’re seeing the cyber intrusions in JLR and Waitrose, and now Kotlin’s aerospace at airports. These contemporary challenges are amongst us today. They’re fundamentally disrupting way of life. So my view would be that prosperity is not just stood on the shoulders of, but it’s critically interdependent with security. So it means nothing to try and chase prosperity without some sort of eye on the security structure.

(08:59):
If you were to go to the cabin office today, the number one critical national risk in the country is the loss of precision time. It’s not a pandemic, it’s not Russia. It’s the loss of precision time, because that would have such a dark impact on our way of life. So there’s technology which is available today, that can insulate that overnight. We could do that near instantly, certainly within the year. But that would be fantastic. Why? Because if we lost precision time, the transport infrastructure would stop, dialysis machines in hospitals will cease. You wouldn’t get any gas out of the petrol station, nor any money out of an ATM. An investment in say, a quantum time transfer device, to insulate the loss of precision time, not only will it help in my old world, bombs get to the targets, but it’ll also keep cars on the roads, trains moving, hospitals functioning.

(09:48):
But at the same time, there’s a reverse flow. I’m on the board of a thing called Mission Link, which is an accelerator, to pick up emerging, cool technology, that knows nothing about national security, and pull it into national security. So this is a way of taking incredible medical technology that we use on high street, and pulling it into defense and security, as much as many other products besides it.

Jason Hewitt (10:10):
Let me ask Mark a question to challenge on some of that. Andrew, you talked about security and prosperity, and the link between them. Mark, do you think city investors share that perspective? And more importantly, do the limited partners sitting behind a lot of city finance have the same sense of urgency and perspective?

Mark Wheatley (10:28):
Well, in terms of urgency, I’m not certain that they do. I think they should. There’s a whole range of complexities in how you look at either defense or dual use technology. And some of them are common to any form of early stage technology. Investors don’t necessarily know how to approach the diligence conversations. You talked about the TRS scales earlier. They are very specific, but give a very particular and maybe extreme case. You could have a Ukrainian defense tech company that’s set up in an apartment in Kiev in February. Any by September, it’s doing some really interesting things, or even by March, is doing some really interesting things. But how do western investors look at that? On a political risk level, the country is imperiled. In terms of the technology, how do they assess it? Yet the Ukrainian kid who’s developed that tech isn’t necessarily going to know how to approach an investment conversation. So it’s very difficult in practical terms, to say, how do we quantify this? What is the timeline? What is the potential return?

(11:27):
And then I think if you look at maybe more traditional early stage technology companies that do get more easily into conversation, to some extent, if the route is government contracts, investors might wonder, what is the dependability of the government as a client? And then they might also look on some of those companies as relatively low return to the unicorn that they’re chasing. Now, we might ask whether they should be chasing the unicorn, but they have in mind the desire to get a ten times multiple. And they might look at that defense tech company and say, it doesn’t deliver that potential. At our July event, we had a really intriguing guy from the Royal Naval Office of Disruptive Technology. And he made a point that I will try to recall, but I’m not great with numbers, so please forgive me if these numbers are not dependable.

(12:12):
If the Royal Navy looks at a piece of quantum technology at say, £30 million a pop for a vessel, if that is commercialized through the civilian sector, that can drop down to, say £3 million and become affordable for deployment. And I think once people who have, say, a civilian use technology, or potentially a military use technology. Think right at the outset, what are the potential use cases for our technology? Then they might approach investors with a bolder and bigger proposition. Because at the moment, they might be too easily siloed, either a civilian, or a defense right at the outset.

Jason Hewitt (12:45):
That challenge around finding patient, politically aligned capital is a really significant one. Sadly when you look at the LPs of a lot of investors in the private capital space. They are not necessarily UK LPs, let alone UK LPs who will share the same perspective. There is this balance here that’s really needed, between capital, that is politically aligned, and opportunity to invest in businesses that have return opportunities that look more like non-defense plays in terms of available return.

Mark Wheatley (13:16):
I think to your point just there back in ‘23, Nordic Pension Funds invested about $88 million into UK Venture Assets, and UK and Irish Venture Assets. And UK and Irish Pension Funds invested about $49 million. So even when it’s that sovereign point, even when they’re not either neutral or antithetical states, the UK and Ireland, in terms of the Pension Fund community is not yet galvanized, so what more can happen? There are Mansion House Compacts, Mansion House Accord. But rather like the government points, they remain as aspirations rather than achievements. And you want to showcase some technology and some ideas. And that’s probably what will unlock some of it.

Jason Hewitt (13:52):
Excellent. Well, turning to some of those technologies, Andrew, you must have had phenomenal insight into areas of emerging technology that are actually meaningful from a defense perspective. What are some of the ley use cases out there that investors can look at as opportunities?

Andrew Turner (14:07):
Some off the interesting models here, which I think would really work, but the quantum process is an interesting question. So at the same time, that computing capacity will be amazing, pushing back the calculable horizons, making the world more understood, by understanding it better. In defense that will mean that we can be faster, quicker, better, and outthinking, outmanoeuvring, and outdisabling, enabling our allies and adversaries. At the same time, the same computer can be used to scroll through molecule design, through cancer interventions. There’s another really interesting technology that I think is breaking ground in front of it, which is about how to manufacture ammunition.

(14:46):
So ammunition production is like making a cake today. You pour a load of stuff into a big mixing bowl, thirty tons, stir it around. A very improper, imprecise, non-homogenous mix is made at the end, which you then cook. And throughout this process, you’ve got this huge explosive lethal consequence at hand. Ultimately, you want it to go bang in the end, but it’s really chaotic. Plus, no change in that process since pretty much the 1970s, but there’s some really good disruptive technologies, which go for about a tenth of the cost, a tenth of the price per ton, and could be created in less than a year. Now, why is that interesting? So the first is ammunition production, but it’s just a chemical, and it’s produced in a form at the end which could be paracetamol. Why is that interesting? Well in COVID, we ran out. We ran out of paracetamol.

(15:32):
In fact, my service through all air force, flew over to India to back load a stock of it, to underwrite our hospitals. So this one device is the size of a horse box, a 20-foot ISO container. The country needs ten of these to make bombs, but we probably need a hundred of them to make drugs. So my message to the government for a while now, has been to amalgamate the MOD, and Science Innovation and Technology departments, space budgets, stick it under a single acquisition prioritization system, which is what’s best for the nation, that has at one end, invested in technical development and discovery, and at the other end, manufacture wholesale at speed for the national interest.

(16:09):
These are relatively simple things to do. There’ll be a bloodbath, because of loss of budgetary control. But the right thing for the nation is to do this centrally at the outset. You touched on, Mark, the institutional capital in the city, around pensioners. Most of that pension money is following global tracker funds. How uninspiring is that? Basically, I’m going to stick all my cash on something almost like a national savings bond, and hope it grows at the rate of the nation, which means that it’s not really growing. Alternatively, a much better and much more interesting, much more nationally focused benefit would be to drive some of that capital into the things the nation really needs, roads, rail, homes, data centers, electric vehicle charging distribution.

(16:50):
What we’re both alluding to is a series of relatively quick policy interventions that would really turn the dial. It would need to be a new framework, a new for of reference that we should be thinking about with dual use, that shifts it from being the risk to the opportunity. The opportunity of dual use is, you grab stuff that’s moving at light speed, and you develop it into the commercial array, rather than the other way around.

Jason Hewitt (17:13):
And Mark, perhaps you can comment a bit on what you think the city appetite is for that.

Mark Wheatley (17:17):
Well, tracking back a few years ago, I went to a pension trustee conference. And this was just after the Mansion House Compact was announced. And that’s the ambition I think then, to get 5% of UK pension fund assets into, it was sometimes to find us venture, it was sometimes to find us UK assets, but strategic assets, shall we call them. And I won’t name the eminent investment advisor who stood up and said, we have this imperative being set by national government. It’s being promoted by square mile representatives, Mansion House Compact. But be very careful as trustees engaging with this. Because it was almost, they’re lying monsters. If you start investing in venture, if you start investing in risk, it’s problematic. Her fundamental point was, that requires diligence. And she was almost shocked to say that it required diligence. Because I think in the city, and I’m sure wiser city investors than me will shudder at this, and want to throw stones at me. But I think we’ve had it easy for too long.

(18:17):
We’ve grown into this world where we think trackers are sufficient. I think now, people like Terra Firma have waved a flag for the new space economy. People like Future Planet Capital laid that point by its security and sustainability going hand in hand. To some extent, it comes right back to the technologies that Andrew was describing, and you were asking about. It’s showcasing people like KDN. It’s ensuring that, Anduril of course has strong state side links, but the Anduril conversation is noted, that Saronic is front and present. It’s having those technologies presented to people in the city, so that they can begin to ponder them a bit more effectively. Even if they’re not investing right now, they become more aware, more interested, and more engaged.

(18:59):
And forgive me plugging my business, that’s what we’re about. The content is intended to be provocative. The community’s pretty early stage, but it’s just shocked me thinking how few people, say, in the city, are interested in and aware of defense and security angles, and to some extent, vice versa. So if we can do anything, it’s about getting people together. It’s about getting conversations going. You’re doing it ably right now, I think.

Jason Hewitt (19:23):
Well, I think the Resilience paper that, Andrew, you and Mark both put together, was an excellent series of provocations on this topic. I wanted to turn to some of the hurdles that you identified in that work. Some of those are about, where does the capital come from? And at the moment, we’re seeing, I think from when I put my investment screening lawyer at on, there’s perhaps even a question about US investors in some spaces. And certainly, we see a lot of capital coming from the state wealth funds in the gulf. How are they viewed in particular kinds of investment? Certainly, we see a lot of investment in emerging tech. But are there areas where different kinds of investors can and can’t play?

Andrew Turner (20:02):
Yeah, just to jump in on that point, I think we need to be very careful about to cap table, just because it implies control. There’s an element of corporate involvement that could lead to a difficulty. That’s not a problem if you’re building, let’s say, a second runway at Gatwick. This is just about large. But if you’re building the digital targeting web, or the national health service database, then we want to be a bit more careful about some of the things. So I think there’s a spectrum that we can look at this. But hey, there’s enough capital in this country. We just need to deploy it differently. I was talking to Mark Russel, who’s the chair of the Ministry of Defense’s acquisition team, the National Armaments director, this morning. And we were musing around how we might deploy some of this, what are the financial instruments?

(20:44):
And yes, there’s a gloomy backdrop on PFI and PPP arrangements of the late Blaire Brown era. But now I think to a certain extent, we got the fee structure wrong there. And it just became a bit greedy, and gloated, and bloated. But now I think there’s a different opportunity. Let’s say, we’ve deployed this quantum time transfer capability to insulate the nation, we can monetize that with our friendly foreign partners, because the satellite is going around the earth. It is overpassing numerous other countries, for which all of them require this service. So we can bury the capital into our national entity, put it in space, take a feed from it for almost zero cost. And then as it’s passing over our partners, we just charge them a fee to use it.

(21:27):
I also think these are the ways in which we ought to be addressing government’s demand signals. So one of the barriers in the paper, is that government is not very clear about what it needs. It hedges against, well, I say this out loud, the enemy will know where I’m weak, and I’ve given away some of the crown jewels. I think, to be honest, we need to get over some of that. Obviously, there’s areas we need to be very careful about. But clearer demand signals would be good, from government. Clearer investment signals would also be good from government. The likes of our venture and private equity companies in the country are looking for a downstream revenue opportunity. They’re not going to put 20, 50 million into a company if there’s no prospect of a return. And what better return than a government cipher, or kite mark on the business plan?

(22:12):
We’ve been in dark places before, bad PFI structures, bad people on the cap table, but there are ways around all of these. None of these are difficult. I used to say in the air force, my job was to turn the grand national into the derby. Knock over the fences, remove the water, let every horse finish. And partially this is, the leadership in our country. I think all three of us are in that to some extent, need to be looking fro ways around these hurdles, knock them over, flatten them, to allow capital to be deployed, capabilities-

Mark Wheatley (22:41):
If at heart, it’s all about trust and confidence, I went with a friend of mine from JCB, the big diggers company. And they deserve a massive plug. And I think their largest client is the US Department of Defense. But we went to the Chilean embassy to meet a group of Chilean copper nano particles companies that were looking at the UK. What mattered to them was, the UK has good, strong, reliable and clear legal frameworks. The UK is a market in itself. Despite Brexit, they felt it was a good access market to the European Union. They were attracted by the capital and advisory capabilities in the UK, and the academic community.

(23:19):
Now frankly, I’m not entirely sure where that’s gone, but those are the qualities that I think we in the UK sometimes lose sight of. And we sometimes lose confidence about what makes us an investible market. We set up barriers around tax and otherwise, but this is still a good place to look to invest, and to develop. I don’t think we’re an objectively attractive regime from a tax point of view. I think we are sometimes overcomplicated on regulation. Going beyond financial services, I think we’ve just lost a little bit of our sense of enterprise. In the UK, there’s only Footsie 100 that’s got a founder on the board. I think Tim Steiner at OCADO. In the States, in the S&P500, there’s 12%. 60 or so of them are founders on board.

(23:58):
We haven’t necessarily embraced enterprise, and with it, failure. In the UK, few have a failure moment. It’s almost embarrassing. As a Brit, I wouldn’t want to admit it, but in the States, it’s seen as a hurdle to clear on the way to success.

Jason Hewitt (24:13):
Thinking about this discussion, really there are three key messages that I’m hearing from you both. One is security and prosperity are fundamentally part of the same equation. Whether or not the market recognizes that with the same sense of urgency is perhaps something that is yet to be fully addressed. Secondly, it sounds like dual use is not dark and gray. It is actually perhaps the opportunity to find those multiple like returns for a lot of these emerging technology companies. A defense play with a more limited return is perhaps not the only answer. The answer is in commercial and broader markets that really bring these technologies from early on that TRL scale, to further down the line. It seems to me, the call to action really, is around making sure that politically aligned and patient capital is welcomed and encouraged to invest in this market. I know that’s something that your Resilience paper spoke about really well.

(25:03):
Andrew, a lot of the things you’ve talked about, around regulation, and optimizing regulation, recognizing the pace of innovation, and taking the funds that are available to deploy, whether they’re pension funds, or ISA funds within the UK, and ensuring that there is an opportunity to put those behind defense capability. So I think it’s been a really interesting discussion. Maybe I’ll invite each of you to offer your thirty seconds of last words.

Andrew Turner (25:26):

It’s for the government to take the lead here. So this idea about deploying private capital into security resilience needs a strong signal from the government. We haver deals in the capital around delivering a million homes. That is going to cost £150 billion. That needs to be catalyzed with the housing fund, grant position, and on it goes. Those are pretty benign, home building. Pretty benign. But at the other end, national interests satellite constellation, that is delivering communications to our police force, securing the borders, giving quantum sensing to the oceans to make the oceans transparent, find submarines. It’s the whole spectrum, benign to quite spiky. I think the government’s seeking to declare where it would be comfortable with private capital, where not. It would be a great start point. But hey, my conclusion is, the country cannot move on, the government cannot advance, and the gov will no meet it’s manifesto promises without private capital. Full stop.

(26:24):
So if the government is really, really ambitious, and seeks for re-election in July ‘29 or beyond, it’s going to have to do something different. Hoping that the old way will work, because some magic will come out of the hat, is aa flawed approach. So the opportunities, these tools are available. They’re to hands, the cash is on the table. The opportunity is here, and we just need to bring it all together. It’s about pulling the constituents into that chemical equation and making it so. It’s not difficult, but it requires application and a government hand.

Mark Wheatley (26:57):
Yeah, and I think I just aligned with Andrew. I think that confidence can be provided by government if it demonstrated that there is a clear commitment that’s going to start now, and go for the medium and the long term, and if the City of London is a place where people can be convened and ideas can be socialized. While Westminster and Whitehall can be that, I fear a little bit around the Ministry of Defense, that there are sometimes wishes, hopes, prayers that we can look to the Americans to develop technology that we will the buy. And that’s great, Anduril, Marvelous, Palantir, Wonderful.

(27:31):
But I think sometimes, when we have these communities established, let’s think about the emerging technologists who are on this island, who could produce either hypersonic technology, with a little bit of pump priming from the government. So maybe, the government, to look down and go beyond silos. And I’m a person who’s not connected deeply in Westminster and Whitehall, so I’m opining from a different place.

(27:56):
And then I keep thinking about the words of Mimi Keshani at Hadean, and her colleagues. They’re emphatic, defense and security is a whole of society issue. And others, like Andrew, are making the point that it’s urgent. It’s here and now. And I think it’s those messages, whole of society, here and now. And think about all of our assets, even if they appear to be soft diplomatic. So I would say, for example, on position navigation and timing, we have the Maritime Museum, and the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, a great beacon for international conversations around civilian time. Let’s bring that to the fore of some of our conversations. Anyway, that’s a thought that perhaps won’t land well in Greenwich or Whitehall.

Jason Hewitt (28:38):
Excellent. Well, gentlemen, thank you both for the really interesting discussion today.

Voiceover (28:44):
Thank you for joining us for today’s episode of Foreign Correspondent, an FDI podcast. If you like what you’re hearing, be sure to subscribe in your favorite podcast app, so you don’t miss any future conversations. Additional information about Skadden can be found at skadden.com.