Mr. John Corrigan:

I suppose it reflects the fact that initially this was a reverse inquiry. As regards the valuations, as a non-executive, I would not have been intimately involved in the transaction but my understanding is that it was only from late 2014 onwards, when the nature of the market changed, that advisers were asked to give valuations as part of their briefs. The role of advisers would have evolved over time. That would be part of the reason. Second, it would reflect the reverse nature of the inquiry, which prompted the decision by the NAMA board to examine this transaction.