Any facts to support that opinion? Doesn't even make sense. IAM had plenty of cash, plus they didn't sell Buckreef. No cash was raised to satisfy a contract. They didn't turn Buckreef over to a counterparty to satisfy thier obligations under a deriative contract. They simply relinquished the licenses. So why don't you explain how a minor loss on hedging transactions causes an asset write down on an unrelated property? At the time they were actively looking for exploration opportunites and acquisitions.