PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Staff, EnshitifAi LLC
FROM: Lester Horowitz-Belmont, Esq., General Counsel & Chief Risk Officer
DATE: April 19, 2026
RE: Ongoing Busy Bee Procurement — Legal Risk Assessment and Recommended Mitigations
I. Background
Pursuant to the Chief Executive Officer's remarks on our Q1 FY26 Earnings Call of April 17, 2026, a matter that had previously been the subject of in-office conversation has now been raised on a public capital-markets channel. I refer, of course, to the current status of the Office Busy Bee (hereinafter, the "Subject Asset"), which since September 27, 2025 has been, to use the CEO's own language on the call, "missing."
I would like to establish several points of record.
First, the Subject Asset is, as a matter of property law, a completed gift from our Senior Partner at the firm's founding in 2020. Gifts of personal property, once accepted, are generally not recoverable by the giver under the common law of this jurisdiction. The personal-sentimental attachment of the Senior Partner to the Subject Asset is, in my professional opinion, a fiduciary consideration the firm has not adequately scoped and one I would prefer to scope with the Senior Partner not present.
Second, three replacement orders have been placed pursuant to a vendor relationship I would prefer not to name in this memorandum. Each of the three replacements has failed to conform to the original Subject Asset in one or more material respects: color, size, species. In particular, the third replacement — and I want to be very careful about how I describe this — is not, in my layman's opinion, a bee.
Third, a fourth replacement is reportedly "in transit." The "in transit" representation has been made to us by the same vendor who made the same representation in respect of the first three replacements. I would ask all staff to read that sentence again, because it is the sentence that concerns me most.
II. Identified Legal Exposures
I have identified, in consultation with no one, five distinct categories of legal exposure. I present them here in descending order of likelihood.
A. Vendor Fraud
The pattern of three successive incorrect replacements — each representing a categorically different failure mode — is, in my professional view, difficult to explain as coincidence. Four successive failures, if the fourth also fails, would, in my professional opinion, support a reasonable-person inference of intentional misconduct. We are not yet at four. We are at three-pending-fourth. I want to be clear that I am not alleging fraud in this memorandum. I am scoping it.
B. RICO Exposure (Outbound)
In the event the vendor is determined to be part of a broader enterprise engaged in sequential plush-procurement fraud across multiple corporate clients, I would recommend the firm preserve the option of a civil RICO action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). I have opened a preliminary file. I will close it if the fourth replacement arrives as represented. I would note that RICO discovery is expansive and that the deposition calendar on a case of this kind can, in my experience, be lucrative for the firm bringing it.
C. Fiduciary Exposure (Inbound)
The Senior Partner, as the giver of the Subject Asset, may retain a residual equitable interest not extinguished by the completion of the gift. I recommend the firm not bring this memorandum, or the subject generally, to the Senior Partner's attention. I recommend this for reasons I will elaborate in Section V, below.
D. Public-Disclosure Exposure
The CEO, on the Q1 FY26 Earnings Call, made express reference to the Subject Asset and to the vendor's representations regarding the fourth replacement. Those remarks are now on the public record. In the event that any subsequent firm communication regarding the Subject Asset diverges from the CEO's April 17 representations, we may face a materiality question under Regulation FD.
I have asked our Head of Investor Relations, Hamilton Breedlove, to coordinate with me on any future Busy-Bee-related statement. Hamilton has not yet responded to my three emails on this matter. I understand he is busy. I understand we are all busy. I am asking again.
E. The Insurance Classification Option
In the event the fourth replacement arrives and is also incorrect, I recommend the firm consider, as a measure of last resort, reclassifying the Subject Asset as a lost executive asset for insurance-recovery purposes. I have taken the preliminary step of preparing a draft IRS Form 1099 for the Subject Asset, reflecting its fractional employment as an unpaid brand ambassador during the fiscal years 2020 through 2025, inclusive. This would, as a technical matter, allow the firm to recognize the loss as a business casualty rather than a personal-property misplacement.
The approach is legally colorable. It is not legally comfortable.
I want to be on the record as the person recommending we consider it. I also want to be on the record as the person recommending we not, as a matter of first preference, actually do it.
III. Recommended Mitigations
In order of escalation:
IV. A Procurement Vendor Observation
I would like it noted that the existing vendor operates out of a warehouse in what I will call a greater metropolitan area I would prefer not to specify in writing. Their shipping records suggest a volume of plush-insect inventory that is, by my rough calculation, inconsistent with the named size of their operational footprint. I have made no accusations. I have made an observation. My observations, historically, have had a track record.
I have saved this observation in a file. The file is in my office. The office is locked.
V. A Personal Note
I want to address one matter directly, because I understand there has been in-office speculation and I will not have a second opportunity to clear it.
I am not the person who lost the Subject Asset.
I say this because I have been asked, twice, in the kitchen of our Austin office, whether I was the person who lost the Subject Asset. I was not. I had not yet been retained by the firm at the time of the relocation. My first billable hour at EnshitifAi was logged on October 3, 2025. The Subject Asset was confirmed missing, per the firm's internal logs, on September 27, 2025. I acknowledge the temporal proximity. I want it on the record that I have no personal-property-loss liability in this matter.
I do, however, have a personal affection for the Subject Asset. My daughter, aged six, has a plush bee at home — not the same species, not the same size, but a bee — who has become, in our household, a member of the family in a way I do not entirely understand and have chosen not to examine. When the CEO made his Busy Bee remarks on Monday afternoon, I was listening to the call from my car, in the parking lot of my daughter's school, and I want to say — because this is the kind of thing that gets back to you if you do not say it yourself — that I cried briefly. I did not know I was going to. I was caught off guard.
I will not mention it again.
VI. Closing
This memorandum is privileged and confidential. It is attorney-client privileged work product. It should not be forwarded. It should not be screenshotted. It should not be quoted, summarized, or "paraphrased for a friend." If you have questions, please schedule time on my calendar through our scheduling coordinator, who is currently checking email intermittently per her out-of-office message and with whom I have been attempting to establish a working rapport.
Should a response to this memorandum be required, I recommend the firm retain outside counsel. I would further recommend the firm retain me.
Respectfully submitted,
Lester Horowitz-Belmont, Esq.
General Counsel & Chief Risk Officer
Admitted in Delaware (2003), and in other jurisdictions.
Attached — Exhibit A: Draft IRS Form 1099 for the Subject Asset, reflecting fractional employment FY 2020–2025, inclusive.
Attached — Exhibit B: Preliminary vendor-investigation file (open, pending fourth-replacement outcome).
Attached — Exhibit C: A photograph of a plush bee of unknown provenance that I found in the office kitchen on April 15 and that I do not believe is the Subject Asset but that I have taken the liberty of preserving in my office, in a drawer, with a label.
This post is satire. The memorandum is not a real memorandum. The vendor is not a real vendor. The Busy Bee is, in the specific technical in-universe sense that applies to absences, real. Lester is the firm's fictional General Counsel. If you are a real general counsel and you see yourself in this, I would, professionally, like to represent you.