I will add that one of the concerns in assessing the ME to WE Foundation in the U.S. three weeks ago was that it was engaged with corporate sponsors and the advertising of the corporate sponsors. The idea was that if you buy this box of garbage bags, the money will go to WE Charity, but it was interesting to me that the contract wasn't signed by WE Charity; it was signed by the ME to WE Foundation in the U.S.
We saw this pattern of a partner thinking they're contracting with one of the entities, but then there's a different name on the contract and the money flows to a different entity. I really questioned whether the corporate sponsor in the U.S. was aware that the contract was not with WE Charity U.S. but with a separate ME to WE entity.
Listening to last week's testimony, I was concerned whether this had happened again, whether the cabinet was not aware and everybody just didn't.... Maybe they were thinking, “It's for charity. It's WE.” Maybe people, as we're all learning, weren't aware that the contract was with the WE Charity Foundation, which is very different from WE Charity. Just so long as everybody knew who the co-signing party was....