This transcript has been auto generated
00;00;01;02 - 00;00;25;10
Jonathan Porter
Welcome to another episode of Husch Blackwell's newest podcast, False Claims Act Insights, where we are digging into the complex world of government fraud. In our last episode, we talked about the beginning of FCA investigations, the issuing of civil investigative demands, which are about what those are and what to do if you get one. Today we're talking settlement how to resolve FCA cases.
00;00;25;21 - 00;00;55;04
Jonathan Porter
In normal litigation, settlement is fairly straightforward, but it's far from straightforward in the FCA world. So we'll explore those complexities in today's episode. I'm your host, Jonathan Porter. Joining me to talk about FCA settlement strategies is my friend and colleague Lorinda Holloway. Lorinda is Lorinda is a partner in Husch Blackwell's Austin, Texas office. Lorinda is my favorite combination in a lawyer, a truly kind person and a feared litigator.
00;00;55;10 - 00;01;15;15
Jonathan Porter
Yes, you can be both. Lorinda is a trusted legal advisor to a range of health care companies. Her first love is the False Claims Act, but she litigates a range of other cases, too. Just last year, Lorinda led a team that represented a Texas position group that sued a management company over Texas's corporate practice medicine prohibition. She went to trial.
00;01;15;15 - 00;01;31;19
Jonathan Porter
She won a huge judgment in that case. After two and a half week trial and now fresh off being named a 2024 litigation star by benchmark litigation, Lorinda Holloway, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining me to talk about the False Claims Act that today.
00;01;32;04 - 00;01;36;23
Lorinda Holloway
Oh, gosh, Jonathan, thanks for having me. And that was a tremendously generous introduction.
00;01;36;23 - 00;02;03;03
Jonathan Porter
So thinks it's well deserved. So, Lorinda, before we talk about settlement, I think it's important that we set the stage with just a quick primer on FCA damages. Fundamentally, damages are designed to compensate victims for wrongful losses. You know, for example, if if we agree that I'm going to sell you a car, Lorinda, and you wire me, say, $10,000, but then the car gets totaled while I'm driving it to you in Texas.
00;02;03;08 - 00;02;16;01
Jonathan Porter
Then ordinarily, you'd be entitled to your $10,000 back. Those are the damages that you'd be entitled to. But the FCA is different. Why is that, Lorinda? And how do damages work in the FCA?
00;02;16;15 - 00;02;47;10
Lorinda Holloway
You know, the false Claims Act was created really to deter fraud on the government. So, you know, imposing just actual damages like that, $10,000, was it really imposed as a deterrent? And so initially, the damages under the False Claims Act were double the actual damages and then later became triple or triple actual damages. And so, you know, it's important, though, to understand that what the False Claims Act is dealing with is knowing false claims.
00;02;47;12 - 00;03;09;15
Lorinda Holloway
Right. So in that example, sort of an innocent mistake or accident. Right. But here under the False Claims Act, if we adjusted that example a little bit, let's say that you're going to sell the government that vehicle, but you sell it to them and you deliver it without the engine in it. Well, of course, you know, the government's looking to buy a car that needs to have the engine in it.
00;03;09;15 - 00;03;36;01
Lorinda Holloway
Right. So you're doing something wrong there by basically swindling the government. And so if they tag you for that, then it's going to be triple or triple the amount of actual damages. So that $10,000 all of a sudden becomes $30,000. Additionally, under the false claims that the government can tag a defendant for penalties on a per claim basis, I'm sure we'll get into that with somebody else on a different podcast and what that really means.
00;03;36;01 - 00;03;43;06
Lorinda Holloway
But thankfully, in a settlement context, the Department of Justice rarely would ever add penalties in that context.
00;03;43;16 - 00;04;09;20
Jonathan Porter
I think that's exactly right. And so the thing people should know about damages, the reason that the False Claims Act imposes that that three x that trebling mechanism is because it's supposed to only touch knowing fraud, knowing false claims, and that knowing peace is important. We're going to do an episode on what knowing means, but that's why FCA damages are so important is because it's only supposed to tackle knowing fraud.
00;04;09;20 - 00;04;37;11
Jonathan Porter
It's not supposed to replace that breach of contract that a lot of people, you know, a lot of lawyers know about. It's supposed to just be going after knowing fraud and that's the key to understanding FCA damages. So Lorenda, for a lot of litigators, when they reach a deal to end litigation, that settlement is really easy. You know, the plaintiffs, they get money and in exchange releases the defendant for often every claim they have or could have now and forevermore.
00;04;37;11 - 00;05;02;26
Jonathan Porter
That's how a lot of settlements work. It's a whole release, but the federal government doesn't operate that way. A lot of litigators who don't do much FCA work, they're stunned when they first see a Stock False Claims Act settlement agreement, which can be ten, 15, sometimes 20 pages. Lorinda, why is that? Why can't the federal government just give that big broad release like the rest of litigation and then just be done with it?
00;05;03;02 - 00;05;22;15
Lorinda Holloway
Yeah, I definitely will directly answer your question, but just a Segway for just a second. I'll tell you the very first False Claims Act settlement document that I reviewed. I mean, I redlined the heck out of that thing, and all I got back was, you know, like a laugh and a hard no. So and that was a long time ago.
00;05;22;15 - 00;05;55;06
Lorinda Holloway
Obviously, I learned a whole lot since. But the real answer, the reason those things are often so long and touch on a lot of issues is because in certain industries, of course, the relationship with the government is very complex. In other words, there's sort of a lot of layers to it. For example, in health care, you know, there are all types of administrative of audits, appeals of audits that go on in health care so a hospital can be billing Medicare for hundreds of different kinds of services.
00;05;55;17 - 00;06;20;29
Lorinda Holloway
And so the government can't just especially DOJ can't step into those other lanes, into the criminal lane, into other lanes that other agencies and complexities of the relationship show up. They can't reach into those lanes and try to give a global release. They just can't do it. And so really where the focus becomes in settling a false claims, that case is in the definition of what's called covered conduct.
00;06;21;06 - 00;06;44;17
Lorinda Holloway
And that's the provision in the settlement agreement where the government is describing what the defendant did wrong allegedly. And it's really the place where you negotiate what it is that you're settling and there's a lot of strategy sometimes that goes into that. How narrow it is, how broad it is and how much you're paying obviously makes a big difference in getting that provision negotiated.
00;06;44;26 - 00;07;05;04
Jonathan Porter
That's the truth. Yeah. I go back one of those red lines once when I was the or multiple times when I was an AUSA and it just, you know, shredded the entire document and I picked up the phone and called and said, just so you know, I don't have the authority to change like 90% of this agreement. You know, there's not a world where you're going to get DOJ to release criminal claims in a civil settlement.
00;07;05;04 - 00;07;30;15
Jonathan Porter
That's just not something the DOJ does. So it's surprising how much of that settlement agreement is is just, you know, required. But covered conduct is one of the big areas where you can craft that and you should. We'll talk about that a little bit more. So, Lorinda, in our first episode, Jodi Rudman told our listeners about whistleblowers. I assume that settling a case with a whistleblower can make things even more complicated, right?
00;07;30;22 - 00;07;49;23
Lorinda Holloway
Yeah, complicated. And sometimes really challenging. You know, of course. Keep in mind, a lot of times Relator's or whistleblowers, you know, they've got a grudge. Maybe they work for the company for a long time or something. And so, first of all, there can be a lot of hard feelings which sort of turns up the heat on the issues that you need to deal with.
00;07;49;23 - 00;08;18;20
Lorinda Holloway
The Relator and Relator's counsel directly on four whistleblowers, or Relator's, as they're called, under the False Claims Act. You know, the share of the damages that they get, their percentage it ranges and that's a deal they cut with the government. And defendants are not involved in that portion of what the relator gets from any settlement dollars. So what the defendant is negotiating with the whistleblower or relator is their attorney's fees.
00;08;18;20 - 00;08;48;07
Lorinda Holloway
They're entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the false claims Act if there is a recovery, and that includes in the context of settlement. Now, typically the government's not going to get involved in what deal you cut on attorney's fees. The defendant paying the Relator's attorney's fees, and typically you want to get those resolved if possible, but you don't have to if you can't reach agreement, you, the defendant or the relator would be the relator going to the court saying, Hey, we can't reach a deal court.
00;08;48;07 - 00;09;14;03
Lorinda Holloway
We need you to decide the reasonableness of the Relator's attorney's fees, and so you can hash it out in court. And I've done it both ways, have negotiated them, and I have litigated them. I will say a lot of clients, you know, unless they've been through this deal, settling a false claims case before, they're often really surprised at both the nature of the of the settlement agreement like we've already discussed.
00;09;14;03 - 00;09;34;13
Lorinda Holloway
And then they're really blown away by the idea that, wait, I just settled this with the government and the relator is going to get a cut. And now I have to pay their attorney's fees. So I try to bring that issue up in the very beginning of a case so that it's one not a surprise. And two, so the, you know, my client can really be sort of preparing themselves for that.
00;09;35;04 - 00;09;55;12
Jonathan Porter
Yeah. Lorinda When I was an AUSA, I obviously wasn't involved in those defense versus relator discussions where they were talking about attorney's fees. But I ended up acting as like a, you know, a solo mediator several times where I get the call from both sides and the defense counsel would pick up the phone and say, can you believe they want like $1.7 million for attorney's fees?
00;09;55;12 - 00;10;11;19
Jonathan Porter
Like, look at this. And, you know, so I hear about it, but it's sort of amazing to see because a lot of people don't get at the end of these investigations, if you're settling in, there's a key time you're obligated to pay reasonable attorney's fees that that would reasonable is fairly important.
00;10;11;24 - 00;10;34;24
Lorinda Holloway
Yeah. And Jonathan, of course, as you well know, like a lot of defendants want all that wrapped up when they're settling with the government. They want a bow tied on the whole thing. So they don't have these straggler issues. And I have had the back and forth with AUSA is like, hey, can you give me a hot minute so I can finish resolving the fees and that we can incorporate that into the settlement agreement and like truly be done.
00;10;35;02 - 00;10;37;13
Lorinda Holloway
And sometimes that's worked and sometimes it hasn't.
00;10;38;01 - 00;11;04;06
Jonathan Porter
Yeah, it all sort of depends on your case. Whistleblower attorneys, there's the range of outcomes in sports to sort of know that there's a lot of options out there. You can go to the court, you can you can play hardball. There's all sorts of things to do. So, Lorena, adding to all of this complexity that we're talking about, I know that a lot of companies and people accused of fraud, they care a great deal about something that is actually separate from the settlement with the Justice Department.
00;11;04;06 - 00;11;27;11
Jonathan Porter
They care about whether they can continue to do business with the government. There have been some horror stories about people who failed to ask the right questions during settlement and were stunned to end up suspended or excluded from government programs were to tell our our audience why negotiating FCA resolutions have to include administrative discussions as well.
00;11;27;25 - 00;11;48;14
Lorinda Holloway
Yeah, Jonathan, I mean, it's really critical. So we've talked about how, you know, if you're dealing with DOJ or an AUSA, you're on this lane and their lane is pretty focused and narrow, right? They're trying to settle the alleged covered conduct. Right. But you have to be aware that there are on that narrow lane, there are intersections that you're going to come across.
00;11;48;14 - 00;12;25;09
Lorinda Holloway
And one of those intersections is the administrative aspect of things. And while DOJ isn't precisely looking or worrying about that, their agency clients have the ability to potentially to exclude your client from a government program, whatever government programs they're billing to. And you need to be looking around that corner. So when you're dealing with the USA or DOJ, you've really got to say, Hey, I need to look around that corner and make sure my client, like nobody is gunning for my client in terms of trying to exclude them from the program or certainly criminal implications.
00;12;25;09 - 00;12;46;06
Lorinda Holloway
Those are, in my experience, at least if you have a good working relationship with the government's lawyer, you start talking about those things early on to make sure that's not on any of the other agencies, radars that somebody is not going to be gunning for your client. So you've got to have that conversation, make sure there's not issues there.
00;12;46;06 - 00;12;50;21
Lorinda Holloway
And if there are, you need to start talking about them with your client early on.
00;12;51;01 - 00;13;09;23
Jonathan Porter
Yeah, that's exactly right. Lorinda, if you're in a hospital, the last thing you want is to be excluded from Medicare. I don't know what the point of your hospital's going to be if you can't treat Medicare patients in the same thing. If you're a defense contractor and you can't contract with the government anymore, it's a big problem. So, yeah, it's super critical to have that conversation.
00;13;10;07 - 00;13;34;19
Lorinda Holloway
That's right. And even if a client said, you know what, this government stuff is only a small fraction of my business. Fine, let them exclude me. There's a ripple effect from that. And you've got to look around those corners, too, for your client. And that kind of gets into a whole nother set of issues. But even if in the rare circumstance the client didn't care about being excluded, there still needs to be a lot of conversation around the implications of that.
00;13;34;27 - 00;13;35;01
Lorinda Holloway
Yeah.
00;13;35;05 - 00;13;58;27
Jonathan Porter
And that's and that's it. So just so people understand, the civil investigation is a parallel track to the administrative piece. Those are two things that DOJ wants to keep separate. The agency handles the parallel administrative side, but there's another parallel, and we're going to talk more about parallel proceedings in a future episode, because it's a very weedy, big issue, and we'll dig into that.
00;13;58;27 - 00;14;07;17
Jonathan Porter
But there's another parallel track that's that's the criminal track, which you just talked about a little bit, Lorinda, is that something that should be on your radar as well?
00;14;07;26 - 00;14;34;05
Lorinda Holloway
Oh, I think my standard practice is in the very beginning. I think you must assume that if there is a civil investigation, you must assume for the benefit of your client that there is also a criminal investigation until you get some kind of at least what I would call cold comfort that it's not going the criminal direction. So I always I my background is Civil False Claims Act work and commercial, you know, civil litigation.
00;14;34;05 - 00;14;59;26
Lorinda Holloway
So I always partner with the white collar lawyer in our firm to ensure that, you know, until I know that fork in the road has been chosen and I and I've got clear indication we're only dealing with a civil matter. You've got to assume that you're dealing with both because they're not necessarily going to tell you again if you have a good relationship and assuming you know that there's no extreme facts, you can probably get a good sense and you would know better.
00;14;59;26 - 00;15;13;20
Lorinda Holloway
Jonathan, having been in that that role, sometimes the government lawyers play things very, very close to the vest. Other times they're like, look, I don't think this is going criminal. You know, they're going to look at it. But, you know, we just need to get this resolved on the civil side.
00;15;13;27 - 00;15;36;17
Jonathan Porter
Yeah. One of the interesting things about DOJ is that there are all sorts of different practices. I mean, there's 90 something different U.S. attorneys offices and they all work a little bit different and those work different for main justice. So there's all these different procedures out there and no U.S. attorney's office is the same as the other. So there's not like a standard way where you know, okay, this is a civil investigation or this is a criminal investigation.
00;15;36;23 - 00;15;56;29
Jonathan Porter
You've got to ask the right questions. But, you know, almost always, if there's a criminal investigation, you're going to know there are things that are happening that are unlike an FCA investigation. And honestly, it's rare that DOJ tries to settle civil conduct when there's also an active criminal investigation into that same conduct. It does happen occasionally, but it's rare.
00;15;57;17 - 00;16;16;27
Jonathan Porter
And what's interesting is sometimes the civil agencies won't even know that there's a different component with a criminal investigation until you ask, which that's why you've got to you got to ask you got to know what questions to ask you about. You get to force that issue. So DOJ is careful to make clear in FCA settlement agreements that they're not releasing criminal conduct.
00;16;16;27 - 00;16;46;09
Jonathan Porter
We mentioned that earlier, but you can still go get some type of assurance that DOJ isn't trying to pull a fast one on you, settling civilly with an eye towards then dropping a criminal indictment. But you can't just assume that DOJ isn't pulling a fast one. That's how you you know, that's that's where problems arise. So, Lorinda, one of the things that I always hear from clients that are on the verge of settling FCA investigations is that they want to settle, but they don't want to admit wrongdoing in the criminal world.
00;16;46;09 - 00;16;56;24
Jonathan Porter
If you're going to plead guilty, you've almost always got to tell a federal judge, Hey, I committed this crime. Is that how it works too? With FCA settlements? Do you have to admit that you violated the FCA?
00;16;57;04 - 00;17;27;13
Lorinda Holloway
No. The standard practice is to include a provision where the defendant says that they deny liability. So that's pretty standard practice. Every now and then, DOJ might insist on a defendant admitting liability for some, you know, very nuanced public policy reason. But I think that's extremely rare. I think, though I have heard and maybe you can speak to this, I think in the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office, I've heard they've got a very, very unique and different kind of approach than I think is more common.
00;17;27;21 - 00;17;28;19
Lorinda Holloway
Do you want to speak to that?
00;17;28;27 - 00;17;53;21
Jonathan Porter
Yeah. Boston is the only U.S. attorney's office that I'm aware of where they make settling. FCA defendants admit liability as part of the settlement agreement. There's a range of issues that come with that, but Boston is very unique in that aspect. You know, I've actually heard recently of other settling FCA defenders outside of Boston who have been asked to admit liability as part of a self-disclosure.
00;17;53;21 - 00;18;19;18
Jonathan Porter
I think the new justice manual self-disclosure protocols say that if you're going to go through that, you have to admit liability, which is interesting because a lot of, you know, if you get caught, I guess committing fraud, for lack of a better word, you don't have to admit liability. But if you want to come forward and say, hey, I just realized, you know, my predecessor, an interest of the past group, they were doing something wrong maybe I guess per the new justice manual, you have to say I knowingly committed fraud.
00;18;19;18 - 00;18;22;06
Jonathan Porter
That seems interesting to me. What do you think, Lorinda?
00;18;22;12 - 00;18;42;13
Lorinda Holloway
Oh, gosh. I mean, I think that's one of many examples where when you are billing the government, you're enrolled in the program, various government programs, you can really find yourself between a rock and a hard place. Right. And there's that all the United States Supreme Court case that says, you know, if you're dealing with the government, you have to turn square corners.
00;18;42;24 - 00;19;07;04
Lorinda Holloway
And that's a perfect example of like, oh, that just feels wrong and terrible. And in a straight up regular commercial business to business context, that would never happen. But the difference is here you're billing the government and these are taxpayer dollars and the requirements can be stringent and they can not make sense in a regular business context.
00;19;07;04 - 00;19;27;27
Jonathan Porter
Yeah, and that actually happens in my experience quite a lot. You know, these FCA settlements can be pretty significant. For example, if there's a kickback settlement where DOJ is taking the position that everything that flows from that kickback is tainted, a lot of times you're getting a damages number that is off the charts, not something that you just have sitting in a bank account somewhere.
00;19;28;06 - 00;19;58;25
Jonathan Porter
So there is a formal process for telling the Justice Department that you don't have the funds to literally pay that settlement in the 30 day window. That's sort of standard. Exactly how that process works varies by U.S. Attorney's Office Main Justice. They have a very demanding, exacting approach where you fill out extensive forms, give a lot of financial information, pledge your you know, firstborn kid, and they take whatever you literally can pay.
00;19;58;25 - 00;20;19;25
Jonathan Porter
And that's the process. A lot of U.S. attorneys offices, they have their own system. It varies widely, but a lot of them have forensic accountants on staff who are doing other things within the U.S. attorney's office. And they have systems to come to a more informal way than at least compared to two main justice, where they can say, all right, well, we think you can pay over a five year period of time.
00;20;20;01 - 00;20;49;18
Jonathan Porter
We're going to break this into, you know, six different monthly payments for X amount each. And we'll go with that. It really does vary. So it's important to have someone on your team who knows that process, knows what you're signing up for, because that can be a very demanding process. So Loretta, one of the trends in that inability to pay process is what some around DOJ call pocket judgments or spring loaded judgments depending on where you are.
00;20;49;27 - 00;21;15;10
Jonathan Porter
I think this started in North Carolina, at least that's what I'd heard when I was in DOJ. But it has become popular in recent years elsewhere. So here's how it works. From my understanding, when a party enters into one of these inability to pay settlements and sometimes in just plain negotiated settlements, they also sign a document called a consent judgment for a much, much higher amount by the terms of the settlement agreement.
00;21;15;10 - 00;21;39;27
Jonathan Porter
That consent judgment just sits in a file so long as the defendant makes all of the payments that are owed. But if they breach and they don't cure, the government then gets to take that consent judgment to court and then they get a judgment for much, much larger amount. It's a potentially catastrophic result for defendants. And Lorenda, one physician, experienced that catastrophe recently.
00;21;39;27 - 00;21;42;16
Jonathan Porter
Can you tell our audience a little bit about that case?
00;21;42;29 - 00;22;09;17
Lorinda Holloway
Oh, yeah, definitely. This is a wild one. It was out of the let's see, the northern district of Georgia, the False Claims Act settlement, believe it was a surgeon and his group agreed to pay $3 million over the course of, I think, a year. Right. And he and his group had been paying in fact, they paid like 90% of that $3 million that they were owed under this payment plan, making the payments regularly.
00;22;09;28 - 00;22;37;14
Lorinda Holloway
And then the physician's ex-wife reopened their divorce proceeding, accusing her ex-husband, the physician, of misrepresenting his finances and even got a receiver appointed. And our receiver is just like an official court appointed person who's in charge of money, property and reports to the court as to what's happening. But basically they take the reins on finances and property and the receiver for whatever reason.
00;22;37;18 - 00;23;02;16
Lorinda Holloway
And I think there is definitely some, some back and forth that went on. But the receiver stopped paying the settlement amount that was owed under the payment plan, like just stopped making the rest of the payments. And so DOJ turned around, reopened the false claims that case and filed that pocket judgment, which was for like an additional 2.7 million on top of the 3 million that he was almost finished paying.
00;23;02;22 - 00;23;25;07
Lorinda Holloway
The physician explained the situation to the court, but the court still enforced the consent judgment and it was a really pretty disastrous result for the physician and his practice, given that he now owes an additional 2.7 million. That's a really I think a pretty out there example. But I do want to say, you know, this notion of pocket judgments, it sort of found its way into the false claims act space.
00;23;25;13 - 00;23;49;02
Lorinda Holloway
But it's not an unheard of practice just in the regular civil context being a breach of contract case. And you settle and there's a payment plan. You know, a wise plaintiff's lawyer will insist on a pocket judgment so that they don't have to jump through a bunch of hoops. Right. I think DOJ is just kind of snap to that and pretty smart on their part and pretty risky for the defendant if you default and don't PUA immediately.
00;23;49;03 - 00;23;51;13
Lorinda Holloway
So you got to really take the payment plan seriously.
00;23;51;29 - 00;24;15;12
Jonathan Porter
Yeah. And Lorinda, I think a lot of people get the consequences. I'm sure it's really frustrating when your your the the the party that is entered into this pocket judgment arrangement and you get a receiver appointed out of the blue and you literally can't do anything to make the payments. That's super frustrating. I don't think that happens very often, but that just happened last month.
00;24;15;12 - 00;24;39;25
Jonathan Porter
It's one of the risks of these, you know, pocket judgments that people should just be aware of. Sometimes things happen that are beyond our control and and there's nothing we can do. And so, yeah, when you're entering into these settlement agreements, it's, there's all these all these things that you've got to be aware of. It's important to have explore with your attorneys the full range of outcomes that could go on, because there's all these pitfalls that we've discussed, a few of them here today, Lorinda.
00;24;40;06 - 00;25;09;00
Jonathan Porter
But I think, you know, I think what our listeners should know is that these settling with the Justice Department not at all an easy process. There's a lot of hoops to jump through. It's important that you walk through that big settlement agreement with your lawyer, understand what the terms are, because it's really complex. You got to know someone who's going to have the right, who's going to ask the right questions, make sure that you're not going to get excluded from Medicare and know what the risks are, because these are complex.
00;25;09;00 - 00;25;32;13
Jonathan Porter
This is a complex area, the law. And just like the area law, the settlement agreements themselves, very complex. So we're and I hope our listeners gain an appreciation for these settlement agreements, the strategies that we take when we're when we're settling these cases. But hopefully, you know, we're going to talk more about these laws, and I hope you'll come back on to to explore some more of these big, thorny topics for our listeners.
00;25;32;13 - 00;25;36;16
Jonathan Porter
But but Lorinda, thanks for joining us to talk about settlement strategies today.
00;25;36;20 - 00;25;53;08
Lorinda Holloway
Oh, it was a pleasure, Jonathan. And, you know, I just want to footnote one thing. I realized we didn't talk about corporate integrity agreements, which is like another lane, right. Of of issues that can come up in the settlement context. So maybe a different topic for another podcast, but I so enjoyed spending time with you today.
00;25;53;23 - 00;26;13;11
Jonathan Porter
Yeah, those are big enough where I guarantee you we're going to have a standalone episode just on case because those are those are critically important in the health care space. So that that's a great idea. So thanks everyone for joining us. We'll see you next time.