Uzual -- From this article it sounds like there is a possibility that FDIC can get off here as acting properly. Do you have an opinion or any documentation as to how the FDIC shouldn't have just said, let's go back to the $8/share offer insteaad of the 1.9 billion? One would think that $8 would be a starting point, instead of just a give away. Something just still sounds like collusion here, though I think it is becoming harder to prove "legally"