First of all, I agree with you, it's not a pleasant situation, and one that I hope will not be repeated.
Secondly, I think I can say frankly that we learned a lesson. To the extent there are payment obligations, they should be clear-cut and mandatory: there should be no ifs, ands, or buts. I don't know why the payment obligation was annual in the past, but the remittances were monthly and were not set out in the regulation. It is clearly something we are going to fix so it doesn't happen again.
By the same token, as I pointed out to you, I believe in cooperation and in working things out rather than in litigation. But I will litigate, trust me, if there is a further breach. We will use the powers or levers we have, but litigation is very often unproductive. We both know litigation is not a quick process; it takes a long time and leaves a lot of bitter feelings at the end. These are ongoing relationships that aren't improved by litigating in the courts. And who knows what the courts will do in their judgments? As a former judge, I think I can say there is no such thing as a surefire win or loss. So I prefer to work things out where you can. That being said, sometimes you have to litigate.
Here, I think these two companies have made a clear commitment to respect...and I cannot foresee their walking away from that. But once this task force has issued its report and once we have a new way of doing business, whatever it is, I cannot imagine it would not require an amendment to the regulations. At that point in time, we will make sure the monthly payments, as well as the total annual payment, are laid out in the regulations.