Mr. Pat Casey:

Yes, and the reason is that Quinn Insurance was put into administration. The company was seen as a going concern that had a problem relating to the guarantees that impacted on its solvency ratio, but when it was put into administration, the underlying business was regarded as being OK and, therefore, it needed to be given time to trade its way out and come back on to a commercial footing. Setanta went into voluntary liquidation because it was unable to meet its liabilities. When it went in at the end of January, it was on the basis that there was to be an orderly wind-down of the company. The information provided by the Maltese regulator in response to the committee's queries sets out quite clearly that a number of attempts were made by the company from the end of January until mid-April to get adverse claims development cover to assist in a process in which it had a party interested in buying the company. That fell through after due diligence and the company was unable to put additional capital in. In that light, the company was put into liquidation on a voluntary basis. The distinction is that one was put into liquidation and, therefore, the terms of the liquidation set out in the ICF apply subject to cappings, etc., while the other one was put into administration because it needed a period of time to get over a financial difficulty but was seen as being able to trade.