I disagree with you.

Perhaps in the INTERPRETATION of many on the board, the perspective would be that the information given you was new, however, IF the MEANING of RG's original comment that the 10Q "FULLY REFLECTS" the results of the settlements, means that all financial payments are in the 10Q, then clarifying for you that there are no "contingencies" associated with the settlement payments (potential payments) is not providing you with any NEW INSIDER INFORMATION. All that Hawk did, IMO, is their job. They "clarified" for you, something you did not fully understand and that you had a question on. I'm not being condenscending in saying that, I'm just pointing out that, in that context, providing you with a statement that indicates no contingency payments is NOT providing you with insider information, it is simply further clarifying an already public disclosure.