Sure. Thank you very much.
Similarly to what Madeleine Redfern said, during the governance crisis, there was no clear path through. There was a very confused and heated meeting that we never received minutes from. The meeting was extremely long. It was a four-hour meeting. After that meeting, when we had asked the directors who were in a conflict of interest to recuse themselves and we thought we had a clear path through, there was a flood of emails, and those emails came from a group of people, a number of people who, at every turn, struck down the path forward.
There was a suggestion that a lawyer be retained to advise. That was agreed to, but then the lawyer's background was called into question. Then there was a suggestion that the folks who had been involved in the years in question recuse themselves. There was a flurry of emails about that. Then there were in-depth edits to motions I had put forward.
All of this was a very heavy effort in the context of virtual communication. There was a boxing in of movement forward, and no clear path for all of the directors to move collectively through. Draft motions asking people to recuse themselves were struck down. We tried to run those motions through a good process, but at each turn, as I said, these motions were struck down. At no point in the process did the directors from the years in question register a conflict of interest or move away from the decision-making process.