It's hard to comment without knowing what the facts of such a challenge would be. There's a very good chance that the second-generation cut-off, in my view at least, would be held as not consistent with the charter. In looking at cases here, but also other cases that involve descendancy and interactions with the charter, that's particularly true for section 6. I'm less clear about whether that would hold for section 11, noting that the order, in this case, does not actually include section 11.
