So here are the questions that I have for the member, that I want her to address in respect of this: in respect of validating financial reporting that would've otherwise been invalid, does that apply to all of the amenities that we're talking about? I think there are 14 amenities in total. I assume that due diligence has been done and we know which ones had invalid statements. Was it all of them, or was it just some of them? Can we understand that? We need to understand if there's any analysis about whether those amenities have made significant financial or investment decisions on the basis of financial statements and reporting that was actually technically invalid. That's a very important thing to understand. If entities have prepared both sets of financial statements—and there's a lack of clarity in the debate about whether these entities have been preparing dual sets of statements or whether some have just been going with generally accepted accounting practice. If entities have been using both sets of financial statements and some sort of question has to be asked about their operations and we have to go backwards and look at them, which is the valid set of financial statements? That's actually a really important—