And this is concerned with this Questor issue?Yes. And if we go to page .0028. Just if we look at paragraph 52(a) of your statement?Yes. I just want to see if I’m understanding whether there’s any difference between what you’re saying here and your earlier thoughts about it. Where you say: Whilst it could be argued that Questor as responsible entity may have been able to provide a greater level of oversight in relation to NCSs calculations and distributions – Is that something that you think is arguable?Well, I think I’ve offered that with the benefit of hindsight you can reflect on these, but at the time no. All right. And what happened then was that there was this over-distribution in 2009?Yes. Does the CMT or did the CMT make annual or quarterly distributions?I I couldn’t – recall. Okay. And then in 2011 the over-distribution was detected?Yes, yes, on the transition to BNP from NAS. Yes, it from one custodian to the other custodian?Yes. And the new custodian identified that was this asset that had been treated as income?Yes, yes, we had over-distributed to unitholders. Well, what the I’m not sure that’s is it? The custodian didn’t identify the – over-distribution, the custodian identified that there was an asset that was missing?Sorry, yes. That’s right?Yes. And then that then caused Questor to try to figure out what had happened to that asset?Mmm. Is that right?Yes. Again, just because it’s being recorded you will need to say yes ?Sorry, yes. And when Questor investigated, it realised that this asset had been mistakenly recorded as income and that it had distributed it to the then unitholders?Yes. Yes. That’s right.
And this is concerned with this Questor issue?Yes. And if we go to page .0028. Just if we look at paragraph 52(a) of your statement?Yes. I just want to see if I’m understanding whether there’s any difference between what you’re saying here and your earlier thoughts about it. Where you say: Whilst it could be argued that Questor as responsible entity may have been able to provide a greater level of oversight in relation to NCSs calculations and distributions – Is that something that you think is arguable?Well, I think I’ve offered that with the benefit of hindsight you can reflect on these, but at the time no. All right. And what happened then was that there was this over-distribution in 2009?Yes. Does the CMT or did the CMT make annual or quarterly distributions?I – I couldn’t recall. Okay. And then in 2011 the over-distribution was detected?Yes, yes, on the transition to BNP from NAS. Yes, it from one custodian to the other custodian?Yes. And the new custodian identified that was this asset that had been treated as income?Yes, yes, we had over-distributed to unitholders. Well, what the – I’m not sure that’s is it? The custodian didn’t identify the over-distribution, the custodian identified that there was an asset that was missing?Sorry, yes. That’s right?Yes. And then that then caused Questor to try to figure out what had happened to that asset?Mmm. Is that right?Yes. Again, just because it’s being recorded you will need to say yes ?Sorry, yes. And when Questor investigated, it realised that this asset had been mistakenly recorded as income and that it had distributed it to the then unitholders?Yes. Yes. That’s right.