French Insider Podcast Ep. 34
Cosmic Collaborations: Financing, Innovation, and Franco-American Partnerships in Space
Thank you for downloading this transcript.
Listen to the podcast released September 3, 2024 here: https://www.sheppard.com/multimedia-586
In this episode of French Insider, Noel Rimalovski, Managing Director of GH Partners LLC
joins host Brian Weimer, Telecom Team Leader of Sheppard Mullin, to discuss cross-border initiatives in the satellite and space industry. These initiatives include France’s CoFace compared to The EXIM Bank in the United States, the emerging small launch industry, and the potential for commercial opportunities on the moon.
About Brian Weimer
Brian Weimer is a partner in Sheppard Mullin’s Washington, D.C. office, where he also serves as Leader of the firm's Telecom Team and Co-Leader of the CFIUS Team. Brian provides regulatory and transactional advice across the entire telecommunications ecosystem. As leader of the firm’s Space & Satellite practice, he is perhaps best known as a leading lawyer for the satellite industry.
About Noel Rimalovski
Noel Rimalovski brings a deep background in M&A and corporate finance to GH Partners. Throughout his 20-year career, he has provided advisory services to clients, including sales and acquisitions, restructurings, capital raisings, valuations and fairness opinions to domestic and international clients in the Telecommunications, Media, Technology, Industrial and Consumer sectors.
Before joining GH Partners, Noel served as Senior Vice President at Macquarie Capital (USA), 2007-08, in the Telecommunications, Media, Entertainment and Technology Group. While at Macquarie, he completed $1.8bn of investments in the telecommunications sector. Prior to Macquarie, he was Director in the Mergers & Acquisition Group of Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and its predecessor Wasserstein Perella, where he completed over $20 billion in transactions in the Industrial, Consumer, Technology, Telecommunications and Media sectors. Prior to joining WP, Noel gained experience as a banker on structured financings, securitizations and proprietary investments at Millennium Capital Markets and Lazard Frères.
Transcript:
Brian Weimer:
My name is Brian Weimer, I'm a partner at Sheppard Mullin, and I lead the telecommunications practice. I also co-lead our CIFIUS team, and I'm based in the Washington DC office. We have about 1100 lawyers worldwide and I am very pleased to lead the space and satellite practice of our firm, as well.
I'm joined today by Noel Rimalovski from GH Partners and Noel and I met some years ago. He's one of the absolute leaders in investment banking for the satellite industry. So Noel, can you just give a little bit of background about your firm and what you do in the space and satellite industry?
Noel Rimalovski:
Sure. Thank you, Brian. Thank you for hosting today. My name is Noel Rimalovski with GH Partners in New York. We are a M&A capital raising export credit finance, restructuring investment bank boutique in New York that I'd say, whereas we have a few different industry sectors we work on, we are definitely very involved in the space sector and happy to talk today about cross-border initiatives and everything else going on related to the space industry with Sheppard Mullin.
Brian Weimer:
That's great. So I think it's appropriate, I'm not sure if we first met in Paris, but I know we meet in Paris every year. I know this podcast is the initiative of our French Desk. So a lot of our interactions deal with France, and I know that one of the things I've noticed over the years is that France is really good at industrial policy. They have Coface and other export credit agencies. They can use those facilities to fund satellite projects. And those satellite projects might be from the United States, they might be from Europe, they might be from anywhere, and then they use that financing to boost their own industry, whether that's satellite, whether it's launch, or manufacturing or any part of it.
So do you work with Coface at all or any other similar export credit agencies in France? And how does that differ from EXIM Bank? Because I know you work with EXIM here in the United States.
Noel Rimalovski:
Sure. So we work with export credit agencies depending on where the assets are being built. So Coface, which I guess they rebranded a few years ago as BPI-face is one of the leaders along with the Export-Import Bank of the USC. And I'd say they're the two largest most sophisticated export credit agencies. And that comes from the fact that France, particularly with Airbus and Thales, and the US SpaceX and all the different GEO manufacturers historically, have really developed the industry and how export credit agency financing can be used to support satellite operators originally.
And I guess a lot of the legacy goes back to the aerospace industry, airplanes specifically, with Boeing in the United States and Airbus in France. And those agencies developing a lot of products that are relevant for aircraft and definitely relevant for space.
Brian Weimer:
Right. And so this is just my impression, I'm a practitioner representing satellite operators. It seems to me that France is much better at this. Our EXIM Bank seems to be periodically dysfunctional, not as well funded. What can you tell me about EXIM Bank and how it compares to the French approach to export credit agency financing?
Noel Rimalovski:
So I'd say the Export-Import Bank of the United States got, for lack of a better term, a bad rap. I would say it was about 10 years ago they didn't have a quorum on their board, which precluded them from doing significant projects. And whereas, going back to the point you raised earlier about industrial policy, the French government's been very good at having an industrial policy. In fact, actually, French government owns equity stakes in some of the major aerospace and defense companies. And so as a result of that, it definitely hurt US industry.
And then what changed, though, is in, I believe it was 2019, EXIM got a new charter, got the board seat filled, and they're back in business. And it's interesting still though a lot of folks don't realize EXIM's back in business, but they've been developing a pipeline and it's a more diverse pipeline that they have these days. It used to be just be GEO-financing. Both BPI France and EXIM were very much involved in GEO-financing. But it's more diverse in terms of clients constellations, predominantly communications constellations are in their pipeline, probably some GEO-satellite programs as well as launch.
Right now, and I'm sure we'll talk a bit about launch, SpaceX seems to be the only heavy lift launch company that's active and has capacity. So I'm sure there's going to be a lot of EXIM financings that, because SpaceX is the manufacturer, EXIM is going to be in them. And even if it's a satellite built in Europe, you might have, let's say BPI France do the senior secured financing on the GEO-satellite, but then SpaceX might provide the launch. And that's going to diversify in '25, '26 into '27. You have a whole bunch of new launchers coming about in Europe and the United States.
Brian Weimer:
Who goes to the Export Credit agency? Or let's say you're in France, you're a launch provider, you're a new launch provider on the one hand, or maybe you're a small satellite operator, on the other hand. Would you be able to go to EXIM Bank to seek financing to help even though you're not a US company?
Noel Rimalovski:
The export credit agencies are generally limited to financing what is made in their respective home country. So for example, traditionally things financed through BPI France are things with French content. So satellites from Airbus, Thales, then launchers from Arianespace. In the US, content from Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, probably ULA.
They're distinct in the sense, and I believe it's the OECD, if you ever wonder what the OECD does, one of the things OECD does is it almost has all the rules that all these export credit agencies are supposed to abide by. So it's not deemed effectively a subsidy by the respective government and everybody's playing on a level playing field.
Brian Weimer:
Right. Okay. So you mentioned launch earlier and launch is of course the name of the game. You've got to get the stuff to space. So for me at least, and you and I have both been doing this awhile, Noel, so it's been a number of decades for me, and each decade's been a little bit different, but when I first started doing this, Arianespace was definitely a leader. They had 77 launches in a row. And granted it was expensive, but it was the absolute best, incredibly reliable. There were other games in town, but if you wanted to make sure your asset that might be worth a quarter of a billion dollars gets to space, you went to Arianespace and it was expensive.
And then SpaceX came along, and in the beginning it was just a startup company. And that was a short time ago. 15 years ago, SpaceX was a startup company. And so now we have the tables almost entirely turned in a little over a decade where SpaceX is launching constantly, multiple times a month. And Arianespace is now in a hiatus where they're trying to get their new launch vehicle up there. It's incredible how this has changed, and I think it's a cautionary tale about how quickly the industry can change.
But you also mentioned other launch providers. So what do we know about this nascent industry about launch providers? And is it only in Europe? Is it in the United States, as well?
Noel Rimalovski:
So Arianespace had delays in getting their Ariane 6 program, and even then, I think they may even be sold out in capacity. I know clients who've looked for launches from Arianespace, there's a long waiting list. So hopefully they take the initiative and scale up their cadence and production, or production and cadence.
But you're seeing a lot and definitely more volume of launch companies in the US. I think the US going back 10 years ago with success of SpaceX, you had a lot of other companies realize that launch can be an attractive industry. And so you definitely have companies like Relativity Space, Rocket Lab, Firefly, APL, ELA with new vehicles and Blue Origin all coming out. And a lot of these companies are focusing, they start out with small rockets moving to medium launch vehicles that could do multiple satellites.
And then a little later on you have in Europe, so just off the top of my head, you have the MAIA Space program ongoing, which I believe is affiliated with Arianespace, Latitude in France, which is a small launch vehicle. And then in Germany you have RFA, Rocket Factory Augsburg, which is affiliated with OHB. And, of course, ESAR Space, which has a great roster of investors in making a lot of progress.
So you're definitely seeing it in Europe. It's interesting. I think also in Europe, a lot of these companies are also focusing on reusability, whereas in the US a lot of these companies, their first generation was no reusability. So I think that in terms of taking the launch industry into a more lucrative business, reusability is going to be a key factor.
Brian Weimer:
Certainly SpaceX is proving that.
Noel Rimalovski:
There've been a bunch of articles in the past about Arianespace saying that reusability was a waste. But I think that people have changed their minds just realizing how much more efficient and better ROI for companies if you could reuse the rockets as opposed to dumping them into the ocean after launch.
Brian Weimer:
Yep, sure. I know, certainly in my practice, I've seen a whole lot more small satellite companies. So historically we have the GEO-satellites, which are very expensive, very large, very difficult to get into space, very expensive to get into space. And I guess you might say SpaceX has created a new industry of small satellite providers, people who can launch something to space for very little money. They have these Rideshare capabilities on the SpaceX rockets. So you have lots of new companies in a whole industry, which is really, I think, super exciting.
So I guess the question I have is with these other small launch providers that are basically going to compete against SpaceX, do you think that they're targeting that small SAT market? Is that what they're focusing on? They're trying to, what they believe is a market that's really been created by SpaceX?
Noel Rimalovski:
That was definitely the original consideration, and then one thing SpaceX has done, which really has caused the industry to flourish, is they've decreased the barrier entry to get into space.
Brian Weimer:
Right.
Noel Rimalovski:
So if you had spend a hundred million to buy a rocket that made your business plan really hard to close, and so you have small launchers. And then SpaceX with their Rideshare program really has made it affordable for folks to decrease their launch cost or capbacks to get into space.
Their launch program, specifically called Transporter Mission and the Bandwagon Mission, they don't go everywhere you want. Maybe not the right altitude or inclination or other factors. So there's definitely a role for small rockets that can take you to specific location. And that goes for both government and commercial missions, but certainly government missions that are highly critical, particularly for national defense, being able to get a really specific launch and not be part of a Rideshare launch is important.
So I think you'll see a role for small launch. I do anticipate that the medium and heavy launch vehicles, so call it, I don't know, 10 metric tons and higher, that will definitely be a more lucrative market than the small launch. But I anticipate that a lot of these folks who are doing small launch today will eventually migrate to a larger vehicle once they prove their technology. And I think a lot of them are actually developing their technology with the idea that they'll move up later.
Brian Weimer:
So another trend that we're seeing, obviously small SATs is one thing, multiple launch providers vehicles. That's great. Another one is the multi-orbit concept. In a sense it's not new. SES bought O3B a long time ago, and they have multi-orbit there, but you've seen a push in that direction. Eutelsat SAT acquiring OneWeb, Intelsat making investments into a multi-orbit strategy, although they're going to be acquired by SES if all the regulatory approvals go through. But this has been a pretty big trend that we've noticed. And I just wondered if you had any views on whether that's, do you think that's going to continue, and have you had a role in any of those kinds of initiatives?
Noel Rimalovski:
I've had a role probably more than I ever wanted to. Constellations are tough. And it's also an interesting point back to something you raised earlier about industrial policy. And up until a few years ago, the call it communications constellation programs were dominated by French, were dominated by Airbus and Thales. Airbus doing OneWeb, and I know you were deeply involved in that. That was the original mega constellation. And Thales built Iridium, or at least Iridium 2, which was a superb program and extremely lucrative, great ROI to the investors, and it was very painful for them to raise the money and get that done. And Coface BPI France was extremely supportive of that program.
And you then had, and actually wasn't so much, I don't think EXIM Bank has financed any of the constellations yet, but you had a lot of know-how and developed as a result of the Space Development Agency program of the DOD, effectively building an industrial base that could do constellation programs. And so we all of a sudden, as a result of that, probably seeing more companies who are looking to build constellations build them in the US. As well as also SpaceX has the launch, SpaceX, you can argue that its competitor, their Starlink products are better than OneWebs. SpaceX even helped out OneWeb when the Russian launches that OneWeb had became no longer available. Which by the way, great example of collaboration across the industry.
Brian Weimer:
Absolutely.
Noel Rimalovski:
Where folks are very focused on helping each other as opposed to competing.
Brian Weimer:
Yeah, that's a good story.
Noel Rimalovski:
Great, great theme.
Brian Weimer:
Yep. Touched upon a couple of things here though. One is, because you mentioned the DOD in passing, you just mentioned the fact that OneWeb had to turn to SpaceX to launch its satellites because they basically were stranded in Russia, which it's touching upon another theme here in the industry, which is national security issues.
The OneWeb satellites, I was actually supposed to go to that launch. I didn't go. COVID was an issue, and then there was also some other things that came out. But then, of course, Russia then invaded Ukraine, which was a serious issue. And it just highlights another topic generally, which is space and satellites and rockets are always connected with warfare and the role that they have in national security issues. So I think as a general theme, the United States felt vulnerable without launch capabilities before SpaceX came to be the leader.
And it seems to me, I work in Washington DC, I've practiced before the FCC, I see a lot of activity there. SpaceX is very much supported. They face their challenges from the government like everybody else, but they're very much supported because it is in the US national security interest to make sure that SpaceX succeeds.
And I guess my question for you is, do you advise your clients when thinking about their business to make sure they're aligned with the government? Because I've seen it over and over again when the government decides to support somebody, that could be either in policy or with financial backing, they make or break companies. Isn't that something that you have to deal with when you're advising your clients?
Noel Rimalovski:
Yeah, a lot of our clients and just the nature of the space industry, even if you're just working with GEO operators, they're huge sellers of bandwidth to the government. You always have to think about whether you're aligned with your respective government, but also along with your allies. There has been a bit of call it historic isolation, and there should be less of it between let's say US and France because these are such big, complex, risky programs. Whether it be launch, whether it be putting up satellites. And when we start layering on the defense needs we're allies, we have a common defense effectively. Whether it be NATO, whether it be other packs we have.
And in terms of particularly Russia, China and then add North Korea is getting rather prominent in this access, there's a lot of these things that we should be amortized in the cost of all these programs across our ally. So certainly our competitors, to put a politely, or geopolitical competitors, are not aligned with us and they are collaborating.
Brian Weimer:
Yeah, I will say certainly the clients, because both of us deal with a lot of startup satellite companies, and oftentimes one of the bits of advice that I give to my clients is, because a lot of them have a commercial idea, but if you can get the backing of the government, the US government, I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but it can really make or break a satellite company as it's starting. If you get the backing of the defense department, it's a huge safety net to make sure you can reach success.
Even Iridium is another example of that, where Iridium was nearly $10 billion to build it. It was purchased out of bankruptcy for $25 million and then turned into a successful business really providing service to the government. And that is just one story, but it's the story that we see over and over again. If the government decides to back something, it can guarantee success basically, I think is the theme.
Noel Rimalovski:
Yeah, it's a difficult thing getting the US government backing. First and foremost, make sure that your business is aligned with the interests of the government, meaning you're not going to be selling to Russia or China. These days, obviously, for example, in communications, if you're aligned with China, that could jeopardize your license to operate in the United States. Make sure you don't have any Chinese or Russian money is definitely a theme that we're seeing. You don't have to worry about North Korean money because Korea doesn't have any money.
But getting the actual money out of DOD, one theme that we're seeing is it's really difficult for small companies to play that game. The large traditional defense operators are much more equipped at being able to get on programs that the DOD, in fact, a lot of times these larger defense companies are helping the DOD to find the specifications of the respective programs. And so they're very well positioned when, let's say, an RFP comes out.
DOD's definitely gotten better over the past 5, 10 years in terms of who they want to buy from. But it still is very difficult for an early stage company to say, "We've identified a need that the US government has, and we're building a product and converting that at an early stage into revenue." I think also the NRO, the Earth Observation folks, the NRO has a bunch of programs that have been very helpful to relatively early stage earth observation companies, but it is a few hundred thousand, and then it escalates from there.
It's hard just given the quantum of money that a lot of these early stage companies need to get there, let's say, if they're putting satellites in space, it's hard to get at an early stage that quantum of money or long-term contract from the DOD, or other government agency, until you really have the satellites on orbit delivering the service where you have a viable product, if let's say it's not a satellite service.
DOD definitely has programs and it's gotten better, but it's still is a very difficult task. If you say, as an early stage company, we're going to create this capability, give us funding to go do it. Some savvy investors a lot of times will say, "Where are you in discussions with these government agencies?" And it's definitely tricky to be able to get those over the line at an early stage.
Brian Weimer:
Right. So this raises another theme, actually. People listening to this podcast can't see you right now.
Noel Rimalovski:
Okay.
Brian Weimer:
I can see that behind you on your wall is a beautiful photograph of the moon. And, actually, here at my desk, I've got a copy of American Moonshot by Douglas Brinkley, which has a picture of the earth from the moon, which is really the story of President Kennedy's decision in the 1960s to go to the moon. And just today in the Wall Street Journal, there's an article about who's going to get to the moon first again, China or the United States? It seems like we have a little bit of another, hopefully it's not another Cold War, but it of resembles the relationship between the US and Russia in the 1960s.
More generally though, when you look at the moon, I actually have clients, believe it or not, in the commercial space, working toward developing data centers on the moon. It's actually becoming real. I thought it was science fiction just a few years ago, but it's actually becoming real. Do you think there's an opportunity, have you seen other things where people are actually going to start doing commercial things at great scale on the moon or in space? How much of a push is that in terms of the industry generally?
Noel Rimalovski:
Definitely seeing it. At this point, it being a commercial business plan, it's still so far out. Most private sources of capital have relatively short, I mean, it's long term, three to five year horizons on investments. So it's really hard for private capital, and there are private capital folks who take much longer, but the massive private capital is going to have a hard time funding stuff on the moon, or cislunar or even deeper space programs. Which may be extremely lucrative though 10, 15 years from now as some of these business plans. Had not heard about data centers on the moon, but I guess if you have people on the moon, you're going to need data centers on the moon.
Brian Weimer:
Yeah. Lonestar Data. Look them up.
Noel Rimalovski:
Okay. Yeah, no, if I'm on the moon, I'm going to want my streaming video services, need someone to store them for me there.
But right now, it's actually an interesting point though, is right now seems like it's dominated by the civilian agencies such as NASA in the US, ESA, European Space Agency in Europe, JAXA in Japan. And so you have in the Gulf region, the UAE has been very active, but I see a lot of those programs at this stage being funded by the civilian space agencies with some participation. But then you're seeing their suppliers, whether it be building the stuff that goes on the moon, stuff that gets to the moon, all that's going to be private. But right now, a lot of the money's going to be coming from, I see for the next few years, to be coming from the civilian government agencies such as NASA, ESA, JAXA.
Brian Weimer:
Agreed. But definitely you agree there's a transition happening though? Another example, for example, is International Space Station is going to be decommissioned relatively soon, and we're seeing private space station concepts being proposed and getting funded. So there's just a move. I completely agree with you, it's a long-term process. Space is hard in so many levels, but we are moving into a more commercial chapter, I guess, in space finance and commerce.
Noel Rimalovski:
Yeah. The space stations, though, those are a lot closer to earth and actually seeing it.
Brian Weimer:
True.
Noel Rimalovski:
So that's a lot easier and a lot easier getting up there as we see the struggles Boeing is currently having with the Starliner project. But five years ago, we all would've been skeptics about economic models at the ISS and for some of these other space stations that are coming down the pike.
But really, really interesting that you're seeing pharmaceutical companies. So for example, Redwire has a program with Eli Lilly and clearly developing complex molecules and microgravity where you don't have the effect of gravity, and so you could build bigger, more complex molecules. Now, let's say the convection that we experience here on Earth in developing molecules, you're seeing some real interest and you think about it, space industry, at least on the commercial side, even on the defense side, it is relatively small compared to the healthcare industry, the pharmaceutical industry.
Brian Weimer:
Sure.
Noel Rimalovski:
All of a sudden to see pharmaceutical companies pursuing this, that adds a lot of base revenue for the space stations and being able to do not just experiments in space, but eventually we'll be having production in space. And there are a handful of companies. I mentioned, Redwire. Space Tango is also-
Brian Weimer:
For sure, yeah.
Noel Rimalovski:
You're actually seeing real business models with very deep pocketed partners pursuing.
Brian Weimer:
Yep.
Noel Rimalovski:
So we've been hearing a lot about Proliferated Leo, but multi-orbits taking on, originally it was the idea of, well, SES went to MEO with O3B, some other folks contemplating MEO, but then everything seemed to be going to LEO, the SDA program, predominantly LEO program.
And then I'd say in the past year, I've seen two other trends. One which is folks realizing, you know what? There's a lot we should be doing at GEO still. So not just in the commercial sector with some replenishments of the existing commercial GEO satellites, but even government programs looking at GEO again.
And then the newest also is V-LEO, very low earth orbit. And we're on the phone with a very prominent deep tech VC firm, and they're taking the view that V-LEO is going to dominate. So much of the applications that we're doing in LEO will migrate to V-LEO.
Brian Weimer:
So where is V-LEO?
Noel Rimalovski:
It's 150 kilometers plus or minus altitude as opposed to let's say LEO, where we're talking 500 to 1400 kilometer altitude maybe.
Brian Weimer:
Right. Yep. Just a little bit closer to earth.
Noel Rimalovski:
A lot closer to earth. So certainly your communications back and forth latencies are lower.
Brian Weimer:
Don't last long up there though, do they?
Noel Rimalovski:
That's a really interesting point. But we're seeing, for example, a lot of interest in the earth observation industry. So you could all of a sudden have 15 centimeter resolution as opposed to, let's say, in LEO earth observation, electro-optical imaging, are like 30 centimeter resolution. So all of a sudden at 15 centimeter resolution, you have a whole bunch of applications, so the data becomes more useful.
But going back to your point, a lot more gravity and so surviving long-term in that orbit, so that then becomes how do you keep your satellite in orbit long enough, so they get an ROI on your investment? And so you're seeing some real interesting new propulsion systems.
Brian Weimer:
Right. That's the key, right? Because you have to spend a lot to keep it up there.
Noel Rimalovski:
Yeah, no, and we're seeing some applications where people are fine with just satellite lasting one year.
Brian Weimer:
Okay, interesting.
Noel Rimalovski:
Okay. But we're also seeing folks who have design systems that could stay in V-LEO for five years. So that's a lot more ROI in general. But actually another point, which I know you haven't been involved in constellations, and everybody's always critical that constellations are going to pollute the orbits, and LEO is going to become an orbit that we won't be able to use because of the Kessler effect, I believe it's called, or Kessler syndrome. V-LEO gravity's a lot stronger. The orbit clears itself up a lot quicker.
Brian Weimer:
Right. So look, you're touching on another really important theme that always hasn't historically been an important theme, but I think it's an overwhelming theme now, which is sustainability. In two ways.
One, satellites can be used to observe the earth in ways that we otherwise can't. And so it's hugely important to make sure that our home here on earth remains a place that we can live, and we address the environmental issues that we chase. So satellites are really important for that. So we want to launch satellites on the one hand because it can help us to get the information that we need about Earth.
On the other hand, as you suggest, too many satellites in space, look, SpaceX already has launched 6,000 of its own satellites into space, and we have many multiples of satellites being launched into space, tens of thousands potentially. So then you have potentially collisions in space, debris, or even the impact of all the satellites burning up in the atmosphere. That can have an impact, obviously, over time.
So on the one hand, it has a potential benefit from environmental concerns and also potential downside for environmental concerns. But I think you and I are both seeing a massive push for sustainable projects, basically. Would you agree with that?
Noel Rimalovski:
Absolutely. So I think as we go multi orbit, it was originally GEO going to MEO 10 years ago, to LEO, to Cislunar, and V-LEO. And then this whole other layer of how do we connect it all.
Brian Weimer:
Right.
Noel Rimalovski:
Topic for discussion.
Brian Weimer:
Exactly. Okay, well thank you again, Noel. Super fascinating conversation and our industry continues to delight and challenge. Thanks so much.
Noel Rimalovski:
All right, speak to you all later. Thank you.
Speaker 1:
[foreign language 00:32:26] Sheppard Mullin, French Desk. [foreign language 00:32:30]. Spotify, Apple Podcast, Stitcher, Amazon Music. [foreign language 00:32:41] sheppardfrenchdesk.com. This podcast is recorded monthly and available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and Amazon Music, as well as on our website sheppardfrenchdesk.com. We want to help you and welcome your feedback and suggestions of topics. [foreign language 00:33:03]. The French Insider.
Contact Information
* * *
Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to FOLLOW the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every week.
If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Stitcher, Deezer or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show.
Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns:
This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.