There's one other publicly known settlement, which is the Ethyl settlement, very early in the NAFTA experience. The United States has never settled a case.
On Mr. Shrybman's comments, as a matter of international law, for example, NAFTA itself defines assets extraordinarily broadly, and I have no doubt that the assets in question here would qualify under the definition of investment in NAFTA chapter 11. As a matter of customary international law, they might qualify as property, but there would be a lot of debate about the amount of compensation to be paid. NAFTA reflects the Hall standard of customary international law, which is the U.S. approach, historically, and most other countries in the world supported other standards such as appropriate or just compensation in general assembly resolutions in the 1960s and the 1970s.
As a matter of Canadian domestic law, I would probably just wish to defer to Mr. Shrybman on his evaluation of that. The one point I would make is that NAFTA covers indirect expropriations, whereas in Canadian law indirect expropriations, compensation is available only if there has been a direct taking of title. That is not the case under NAFTA chapter 11. Furthermore, of course, it's always subject to legislative supremacy, and legislative supremacy, as I indicated, has been in effect subordinated by NAFTA chapter 11 to the decisions of the arbitrators.