Professor Shane Kilcommins:

The result of that was that my colleagues were considering it. The chief corporate officer and the chief financial officer were there and again, they sought to defend what was done. They explained the transaction and the process and said that in their view, all relevant information had been provided to the executive and governing authority and that it was sufficient for the purposes. They did not share all of the details, including that legal correspondence and the dissenting opinions, because it was not necessary. In the correspondence it was clear they had taken the view that they were happy to take that risk in terms of the different opinions that were being presented and on the basis of the advice that was being received by the external lawyers.