First of all, I didn't want to imply that we could pick up and terminate litigation where we left off. That was certainly not my intention.
What I was alluding to when I said “without prejudice to the legal decisions taken to date” is that in the course of this litigation, there were decisions taken in the WTO, NAFTA, and U.S. court that are on the books and relate to specific aspects of the softwood lumber litigation process and that whole myriad of litigation that has been undertaken in that regard. Those decisions reside in terms of governing elements on how you proceed with pass-through elements of this and zeroing in on that, all in relation to the two positions relating to how we litigate it through this process. That's all I meant with respect to “without prejudice to”.
I certainly did not want to imply, and I apologize if I did leave the impression, that somehow we could pick up litigation where it ceased under the softwood lumber agreement, because that litigation is terminated upon its coming into force. So if I misled anybody, it was unintentional.