Craig Peters: We were – in Q3, we did not see the trough. As Jen mentioned, we continue to be down double digits in that segment of the business. I would say it was a little bit more uneven. So there is some good news in there combined with some bad news. But so I hope that some of the activities that we’re taking on and engagement with those agency clients around things like Generative AI are going to bode well going out into the future. But in Q3, we were down kind of consistent to where we were in Q2, and – but hope again that we’ll see some benefits of that going forward.
Mark Zgutowicz: Got it. All right. Thanks very much. Appreciate it.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Tim Nollen of Macquarie. Please go ahead.
Tim Nollen: Hi, thanks very much. Could I ask a – first a follow-up on the warrant situation, please. Just if you could help explain a bit more what the financial impact to you is, if it’s $88 million or so of damages? You have $60 million of insurance I guess against that then do we need to worry about that net difference there as a, you know, potential path that you’re going to have to make? And if you could explain how the surety bond works, please, you mentioned amortization of it. I think you have the terms or just how that works in general will be very helpful. Thanks.
Craig Peters: Yes. I will pass to Jen on the bond side of things. I’ll do my best to cover off on the initial parts of the judgment and the exposure with respect to the warrant. So first off, I’ll reiterate we disagree with the ruling and we have every intent to appeal. And we think the facts are in our favor. And we think we did everything right under the warranty – under the warrant agreement as well as with Securities laws. So that’s first of all, I think that, you know, this is not something that we view as settled. With respect to the warrant, I think you largely got it right, Tim. You know, there is insurance up to that 60 there’s – you know, underneath that is covered legal costs plus judgment, there will be an inflator on the judgment as we appeal if it were to ultimately come to that.
So that’s why we’re taking a bond that’s greater than ultimately the judgment itself in order to cover that. And so, Yes, I mean the exposure, if we were in fact to lose on appeal and exhaust our options and continuing to take this forward you would basically be looking at those net amounts.
Tim Nollen: Right. So around 30 reported – these 60 – around $30 million or so difference?
Jen Leyden: Hi, Tim, you probably haven’t had a chance to come through the filings yet, but what you’ll see on there is with that law firm litigation of about $112.5 million and the netted against that is there an insurance recoverable of $60 million. So in loss on litigation there’s going to be damages, interest, pre and post-judgment and then legal fees. And then as we obtain the bond, we will start to amortize the cost of that bond from the time we placed the bond through to however along the bonds in place to that same loss on litigation account.
Tim Nollen: Okay.
Craig Peters: And the cost of that bond is roughly in between the 1% and 2% range.
Jen Leyden: Yes, it’s hovering around the 1.5% range.
Tim Nollen: Okay. Okay. I think I get the principles there. Thanks very much.
Jen Leyden: Okay.
Craig Peters: Thanks, Tim.
Operator: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that was the final question.
Craig Peters: Great. Well, thank you all for making time. Very much appreciated. Appreciate the questions and look forward to the next call. Thank you.
Jen Leyden: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today’s event. Thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines.
