We would disagree, and again, what we would see is that the former judge or other person would be a resource to provide information to both parties. Then both parties would be able to come to their own conclusion. If it's binding, it could be very difficult. Both parties, once they receive all the information, might not want it to be binding. They may actually be able to come to their own conclusion outside of the information provided by the former judge or other person, as is in the legislation.
As soon as something is made binding it can automatically create more judicial reviews. We think if we give more flexibility—and I might ask for some legal opinion on this—within the advice the former judge would be providing, and the advice and information is given to both parties, with obviously the hope that the end result would be the parties coming to an agreement, that creates more flexibility. That creates probably a better atmosphere to come to the agreement without having to go to litigation.