Mr. Brendan O'Connor:

There is no commonality. In a particular set of cases, where somebody is party to a loan with somebody else, only one party might arrive in. There could be a joint mortgage. In some respects, one wonders why it goes to a vote because one cannot just tear up the mortgage contract of somebody else unless he or she is present. This makes it very different because there could be separation circumstances where somebody is trying to move on. However, one cannot just tear up the mortgage and recontract. A second reason concerns where the proposals from the PIPs seek to have some assets placed outside the arrangement. We had one case in 2014 — I do not want to get into the specifics — in which there were assets overseas that an individual wanted to leave out of the arrangement but we were just not going to agree to something like that. The third reason concerns the nature of the forbearance sought.

Regarding a mortgage, a certain type of forbearance may be sought although we will offer a different type. We are trying to remain consistent with people in terms of what restructuring arrangements we offer. People may seek a principal write-down although standard forbearance or a different type of mortgage restructuring would do. In all cases that we turned down, we offered an alternative, with the exception of one where we did not believe the mortgage was sustainable in any shape or form. In that case, we offered, on the basis that the house would be sold, to write off the residual in full. The mortgage could not be sustained otherwise. In all the other cases, all the offers we had allowed the person to stay in his or her home. In bankruptcy cases, this would not happen. I am happy about our interaction. We vote commercially across all of these cases.