Mr. Alan Stewart:

The first time Brown Rudnick would have had access to information or materials that would have been covered by a non-disclosure agreement was when it was engaged as an adviser to PIMCO and entered the first data room. That was in late 2013, at which point PIMCO had signed a non-disclosure agreement which included, as I explained, the obligations on their professional advisers which included Brown Rudnick. When it came to the point where PIMCO had withdrawn from the process - we are talking about the period around 14 March - the point in time when it notified Lazard of its withdrawal, Lazard was asked to ensure all of the documentation, including the informational materials, was destroyed or otherwise dealt with in accordance with the terms of the non-disclosure agreement. That, equally, extended to all of its professional advisers under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement. There was an obligation on PIMCO at that point to ensure both it and its professional advisers destroyed or returned the information or materials, primarily the content in the data room. That is the sequence of events involved.

When Cerberus retained Brown Rudnick, the point to which the Deputy has come, and we were notified on 3 April of its intention to retain it as a strategic adviser, the requirement on it was that it notify us of who its adviser was. Because it had largely closed at that stage because the bids were in from 1 April Brown Rudnick would not have had a necessity to access the data room and, therefore, the informational materials in its capacity as an adviser to Cerberus.