There is no difference between us and cleaning up. We, on the other hand, think it is sensible to abide by the law. As far as the lawyer's report is concerned, it does not actually constitute the full set of legal opinions in this regard. It was an initial report, and it was also, as I remember it - note that I said "as I remember it" - given to the Usaasa board. A million things happen in a day in this Communications department. If it was not given, it is going to be done this very afternoon. But, as far as I can remember, it was given to them and they rejected that report.
In fact, the point I want to stress is that we do not agree with the view that we should just fire the board, fire the CEO and face the legal consequences, because then you are caught up in a time-consuming and costly quagmire. Really, it would take much longer for us to resolve the matter. There is no difference between us. We must deal with this matter decisively and do it correctly. On that score there is no difference.
Where there is a difference is with regard to the meaning of the report that was produced by the advocate and how it actually helps us to resolve the issue. In short, there is no difference between us and what is to be the outcome in the sense that we need to move forward and let us clean it up if there is corruption, as claimed in the original report.
As for it not being a draft report, as I recall it actually does say "draft" on the first page, but we can check that. It occurs to me now that we did subsequently give the Usaasa board's reply to Gobodo. We felt that there were people who were being targeted for wrongdoing there but who have not been consulted, and it is certainly the case. There is a fundamental flaw with regard to the report. Those people will take us to court because they were not interviewed. As I remember it, again, a representative of Gobodo did confirm that they did not interview at least some of the people whom they said had done wrong.