I can't tell you what happened in the boardroom. I can just say that as it is, it's a company. It has its own code of conduct and conflict of interest rule—a very good one—which, by the way, incorporates the act and says that they have to comply with it. There is a corporate secretary who informs all the members when they're appointed that there's a code of conflict that they have to comply with, and please sign, etc. If they want to, they can ask us to give a presentation on the act, and we'll gladly do that.
Don't forget that they are business people. They sit on other boards, and this is nothing new to them. They know that if there's a conflict, they have to declare it, and if they have been properly instructed, not only declare it but get out of the room. They presumably assumed, as with other companies, that they could stay there as long as they abstained. It depends on what the internal rules are.
I really don't know to what extent they were briefed or were taught and reminded of it. Strangely enough, this outfit did not have a corporate secretary; they only had a recording secretary. I don't know how you run a company without a corporate secretary, because that person usually calls the meeting, brings the documents together, and informs everybody, but that's how they operated. I don't know to what extent there was emphasis on conflict of interest.
Michael, you looked at all the minutes. Please help supplement this.