IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT DISTRICT OF

NEBRASKA

CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONSCORPORATION,

Plaintiff, 8:11CV270

v.

GREATER OMAHA PACKING COMPANY,) INC., )

)Defendant. )

-)

COURT' S CHARGE TO THE JURY

INSTRUCTION NO. _Now that you have heard the evidence, it is my duty to

inform you of the legal principles and considerations you are to

use in arriving at a proper verdict.

In accordance with the oath which each of you took when

you were selected as jurors to try this case, it is your duty to

determine the disputed issues of fact in this case from the

evidence produced and seek thereby to reach a verdict which shall

speak the truth of the case and thereby do justice between the

parties hereto, uninfluenced by sympathy, favor, affection or

prejudice for or against any party. It is your duty to receive

and accept as correct the law as given you in this charge, and

you are not privileged to entertain an opinion as to the law or

what the law should be which conflicts in any respect with the

law as stated in this charge. However, I have not attempted to

embody all the law applicable to this case in any one of the

instructions which I have given you, and therefore, you must

consider the instructions in their entirety, giving due weight

to each instruction, and construing each instruction in the

light

of, and in harmony with, the other instructions, and so apply

the principles set forth to all of the evidence received during

the trial.

INSTRUCTION NO.

At the outset, I urge you to make every effort to

reach an agreement in your deliberations. Inconclusive trials

are not desirable. A common understanding

among competent and

intelligent people ought to be possible.

However, this observation must not be construed by any

juror as a suggestion of the abandonment of an opinion held

understandably and earnestly, just for the sake of agreement.

The Court must never coerce agreements by jurors. It is

appropriate to suggest that if you should find yourselves in

apparent disagreement , each of you should carefully

reexamine your opinions before assuming a position of

dissent.

I should give you one preliminary word of caution. It

is seldom wise or beneficial for a juror to make an emphatic

expression of his or her opinion of the case, or to announce a

determination to stand for a certain verdict, immediately upon

entering the jury room at the beginning of deliberations. The

reason for this is obvious. We are all human, and it is

difficult to recede from a position once it has been firmly and

definitely stated .

INSTRUCTION NO.

A party who has the burden of proving a claim must do

so by a greater weight. A greater weight of the evidence .means

evidence sufficient to make a claim more likely true than not

true.

A greater weight of the evidence is not determined by

the greater number of witnesses testifying in relation to the

facts and circumstances, but that amount of evidence which on

the whole, when fully, fairly and impartially considered, makes

the stronger impression on your mind and is more convincing as

to its truth when weighed against the evidence in opposition

thereto.

If the evidence is equally balanced, a greater weight of the

evidence is not established.

You may have heard of the term "proof beyond a

reasonable doubt." That is a stricter standard which applies

in criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases such as

this. You should, therefore, put it out of your minds.

INSTRUCTION NO.

While you should consider only the evidence in the

case, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from

the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light

of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions

and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to

draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony

and evidence in the case.

You have heard the terms "direct evidence" and

"circumstantial evidence. " You are instructed that you should

not be concerned with those terms since the law makes no

distinction between the weight to be given to direct and

circumstantial evidence.

INSTRUCTION NO.

During the trial I have ruled on objections to certain

evidence. You must not concern yourselves with the reason for

such rulings since they are controlled by rules of law.

You must not speculate or form or act upon any opinion

as to how a witness might have testified in answer to questions

which I have rejected during the trial, or upon any subject

matter to which I have forbidden inquiry.

In corning to any conclusion in this case, you must be

governed by the evidence before you and by the evidence alone.

You have no right to indulge in speculation, conjecture or

inference not supported by the evidence.

The evidence from which you are to find the facts

consists of the following: (1) the testimony of the

witnesses;

(2) documents and other things received as exhibits; and (3) any

facts that have been stipulated -- that is, formally agreed to by

the parties.

The following things are not evidence: (1) statements,

comments, questions and arguments by lawyers for the parties; (2)

objections to questions; and (3) anything you may have seen or

heard about this case outside the courtroom.

INSTRUCTION NO . ..You, as jurors, are the sole judges of the

credibility of the witnesses and the weight their testimony

deserves. In

deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what

testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You

may believe all of what a witness said, or only part of it, or

none of it.

In determining the weight to be given to the testimony

of the witnesses, you should take into consideration their

interest in the result of the suit, if any appears, their conduct

and demeanor while testifying, their apparent fairness or bias,

their relationship to the parties, if any appears, their

opportunities for seeing or knowing and remembering the things

about which they testified , the reasonableness or

unreasonableness of the testimony given by them, any previous

statement or conduct of the witness that is consistent or

inconsistent with the testimony of the witness at this trial, and

all of the evidence , facts, and circumstances proved which tend

to corroborate or contradict such evidence, if any appear. You

are not bound to take the testimony of any witness as true,

and should not do so if you are satisfied from all the facts

and circumstances proved at the trial that such witness is

mistaken in the matter testified to, or that for any other

reason

appearing in the evidence, the testimony is untrue or unreliable.

The fact that one side may have used a greater

number of witnesses or presented a greater quantity of

evidence should not affect your decision. Rather, you should

determine which witness or witnesses, and which evidence

appears accurate and

trustworthy. It is the weight of the evidence that counts --

not the number of witnesses.

The testimony of a single witness which produces in

your minds belief in the likelihood of truth is sufficient for

proof of any fact, and would justify a verdict in accordance with

such testimony, even though a number of witnesses may have

testified to the contrary if, after consideration of all of the

evidence in the case, you hold greater belief in the accuracy and

reliability of the one witness.

INSTRUCTION NO.

A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience,

training, or education in a particular area may testify as an

expert in that area. You determine what weight, if any, to give

to an expert 's testimony just as you do with the testimony of

any other witness. You should consider the expert 's

credibility as a witness, the expert' s qualifications as an

expert, the sources of the expert 's information, and the

reasons given for any opinions expressed by the expert.

INSTRUCTION NO.

During the trial, testimony was presented to you by

deposition. Such testimony is under oath and is entitled to

the same fair and impartial consideration you give other

testimony.

INSTRUCTION NO.

During the trial, you have heard the word

"interrogatory." An interrogatory is a written question asked

by one party of another, who must answer it under oath in

writing.

Consider interrogatories and the answers to them as if the

questions had been asked and answered here in court.

INSTRUCTION NO.

All of the parties to a lawsuit are entitled to the

same fair and impartial consideration, whether they are

corporations or individuals.

INSTRUCTION NO.

This is a civil action brought by Cargill Meat

Solutions Corporation, who is the plaintiff in this action. It

is brought against Greater Omaha Packing Company, Inc., who is

the defendant in this action. Hereafter I may occasionally

refer to the parties simply as the "plaintiff" or by its proper

or

legal name ("Cargill") . The defendant may be referred to as

"defendant" or by its proper or legal name ("Greater Omaha").

The plaintiff claims that defendant sold and shipped

raw beef trim in August of 2007 that was adulterated and

contaminated with a strain of E. coli 0157:H7. As a result, the

plaintiff claims that the defendant: (1) breached an express

warranty, (2) breached the implied warranty of merchantability,

(3) breached the implied warranty of fitness for a

particular purpose, and (4) breached their contract.

Defendant denies plaintiff' s claims.

Members of the jury, you should understand that this

instruction constitutes only a brief summary of the claims made

by the respective parties in this case and should not be taken

or considered by you as evidence in this case. You must

consider

and decide each of plaintiff 's claims separately.

INSTRUCTION NO.

The parties have stipulated to certain facts. You

should treat those facts as having been proved. The parties

agree that the following should be accepted as established facts

for the purposes of this case:

1) On August 9, 2007, Greater Omaha sold and shipped

raw beef trim to Cargill.

2) On August 16, 2007, Cargill manufactured

American Chef' s Selection Angus Beef Patties 18-1/3 Pound

Patties, by combining raw materials from four suppliers:

Beef Products, Inc., Frigorifico PUL, Lone Star

Processors, and Greater Omaha.

3) On October 6, 2007, the United States Department

of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service announced a recall

for American Chef' s Selection Angus Beef Patties 18-1/3 Pound

Patties because of potential contamination with E. coli 0157:H7.

4) After the recall, certain individuals filed suit

against Cargill.

INSTRUCTION NO.

Cargill claims that the parties ' contract is made

up of its Approved Supplier Program Documents (Exhibit Nos. 1,

2 and

3, Greater Omaha' s responsive correspondence(Exhibit Nos. 4, 860'

_ and 6), and the individual transaction documents between the

parties, including the Bi 11s of Lading(Exhibit Nos. 818 and

819\) and the Certificates of Analysis (Exhibit Nos. 16 and 17)

provided by Greater Omaha to Cargill. Cargill alleges these

documents and communicat ions contractually obligated Greater

Omaha not to ship any adulterated beef trim to Cargill. Cargill

also alleges that these documents and communications

contractually obligated Greater Omaha to comply with Cargill' s

E.coli 0157:H7 sampling program, procedures , and requirements.

Greater Omaha claims that the parties ' contract is

limited to Exhibit No. 860 ( the "Letter of Guarantee" ). With

respect to the Letter of Guarantee, the parties dispute the

meaning of Paragraph 5, which reads: "This Guarantee shall

be void in the event any act or omission by buyer shall be a

contributing cause to any loss otherwise covered by this

Guarantee."

Greater Omaha contends that Cargill' s not conducting

finished product testing of hamburger patties containing Greater

Omaha's beef trim for E. coli 0157:H7 was a "contributing cause"

of Cargill' s own losses. Cargill contends that the term

"contributing cause" as it is used in Paragraph 5 of the Letter

of Guarantee does not require Cargill to re-test Greater Omaha'

s meat for E. coli 0157:H7.

You must determine what constitutes the parties '

contract, and which of the parties ' interpretations of

that contract is correct. In making your determination,

you should consider the following information:

1) Contracts are construed to give effect to the

intention of the parties at the time the contract was

made.

2) The words of a contract are to be given their plain

and ordinary meaning. The intent expressed in the language used

prevails over any secret intention of either party.

3) A contract is to be read as a whole. Consider the

whole contract and if possible give effect to every part of the

contract. A construction that gives effect to all parts of a

contract is preferred over one that renders part of the contract

redundant and useless.

4) A construction that makes a contract lawful is

preferred over one that makes it unlawful.

5) Ambiguous language in a written contract is

interpreted against the drafter or the party who selected it.

You must determine whether and the extent to which Cargill may

recover on its breach of contract claim in light of your

interpretation of the contract and the conduct of the

parties.

INSTRUCTION NO.

Breach of Express Warranty

The plaintiff claims that the defendant expressly

warranted that its raw beef trim would not be adulterated.

The plaintiff also claims that defendant 's

alleged breach of this express warranty was the direct and

proximate cause of plaintiff 's alleged losses.

The defendant denies that it breached any express

warranty to the plaintiff, denies that any act or omission by

defendant was a direct and proximate cause of the damages the

plaintiff has alleged, and denies the nature and extent of the

damages alleged by the plaintiff.

An express warranty may be created in any of the

following ways:

1) If the seller makes a statement of fact or a

promise to the buyer, which relates to the goods and becomes

part of the basis of the bargain, that creates an express

warranty

that the goods will conform to the statement of fact or promise.

2) If a description of the goods is part of the

basis of the bargain that creates an express warranty that the

goods will conform to the description .

An express warranty may be created even if forma l

words such as "warranty" or "guarante e" are not used, and even

if the seller does not have a specific intention to make a

warranty. On

the other hand, a statement of the value of the goods or a

statement purporting to be the seller' s opinion or

commendation of the goods, does not, by itself, create a

warranty.

Burden of Proof

Before the plaintiff can recover against the

defendant for breach of express warranty, the plaintiff must

prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, each of the

following:

1) That defendant was a merchant as to the raw beef

trim;

2) That defendant sold the raw beef trim;

3) That defendant expressly warranted that raw beef

trim it sold to the plaintiff would be unadulterated and

conform to the guarantee that defendant Greater Omaha made to

plaintiff Cargill as of the date of shipment or delivery of the

raw beef trim to plaintiff.

4) That plaintiff is a party who could have been

expected to use, consume, or be affected by the raw beef

trim;

5) That defendant' s raw beef trim was adulterated

and therefore the product was not in compliance with the

warranty;

6) That within a reasonable time after the

plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the breach, it

gave the defendant notice of the alleged breach;

7) That the breach of express warranty was a

proximate cause of some damage to the plaintiff;

8) The nature and extent of that damage.

Effect of Findings

If the plaintiff has not met this burden of proof, then

your verdict must be for the defendant with respect to the breach

of express warranty claim.

On the other hand, if the plaintiff has met this

burden of proof, then you must consider the defendant' s

affirmative

defenses, which are discussed in Instruction Nos. 19 and 20

below.

INSTRUCTION NO.

Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

The plaintiff claims that the defendant supplied

Cargill with raw beef trim that was not merchantable, and that

this breach of the implied warranty of merchantability was the

direct and proximate cause of plaintiff 's alleged losses.

The defendant denies that it breached the implied

warranty of merchantability to the plaintiff, denies that any

act or omission by the defendant was a direct and proximate

cause of the damages the plaintiff has alleged, and denies the

nature and extent of the damages alleged by the plaintiff.

To be merchantable, goods must:

1) Be such as would pass without objection in

the trade as goods of the kind described;

2) In the case of fungible goods, be of fair

average quality for goods of the kind described;

3) Be fit for the ordinary purposes for which

such goods are used;

4) Within the variations permitted by the agreement,

be of even kind, quality, and quantity, within each unit and

among all of the units involved;

5) Be adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as

the agreement may require; and

6) Conform to the promises or affirmations of

fact made on the container or the label, if any.

Burden of Proof

Before the plaintiff can recover against the

defendant, the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of

the evidence, each and all of the following:

1) That the defendant sold the raw beef trim to the

plaintiff;

2) That, at the time of the sale, the defendant was

a merchant with respect to goods of that kind;

3) That, at the time the raw beef trim was tendered

by defendant, it was not merchantable;

4) That, within a reasonable time after the

plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the breach, it

gave the defendant notice of breach;

5) That the breach of this warranty was a

proximate cause of some damage to the plaintiff; and

6) The nature and extent of that damage .

EFFECT OF FINDINGS

If the plaintiff has not met this burden of proof,

then your verdict must be for the defendant with respect to the

breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claim .

On the other hand, if the plaintiff has met this

burden of proof, then you must consider defendant 's affirmative

defenses, which are discussed in Instruction Nos. 19 and 20

below.

INSTRUCTION NO.

Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular

Purpose The plaintiff claims that the defendant

supplied

Cargill with raw beef trim that was not fit for the particular

purpose of grinding and then reselling ground beef products

processed with the raw beef trim for human consumption.

The plaintiff also claims that this breach of the

implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was the

direct and proximate cause of plaintiff' s alleged losses .

The defendant denies that it breached the implied

warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, denies that any

act or omission by the defendant was a direct and proximate

cause of the damages the plaintiff has alleged, and denies the

nature and extent of the damages alleged by the pla intiff.

Burden of Proof

Before the plaintiff can recover against the defendant

for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular

purpose, the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the

evidence, each and all of the following:

1) That the defendant sold the raw beef trim to the

plaintiff;

2) That, when the contract for sale was made, the

plaintiff purchased the goods for grinding and then

reselling

ground beef products for human consumption, and the

defendant knew or had reason to know this;

3) That, when the contract for sale was made, the

plaintiff was relying on the defendant' s skill or judgment

to furnish goods suitable for that particular purpose and

the defendant had reason to know of this reliance;

4) That at the time the goods were delivered by the

defendant, they were not fit for the particular purpose in

question as of the date of shipment or delivery of the raw

beef trim to plaintiff;

5) That, within a reasonable time after the

plaintiff discovered or should have discovered that the goods

were not fit for the particular purpose in question, it gave

the defendant notice of breach;

6) That the breach of this warranty was a

proximate cause of some damage to the plaintiff;

7) The nature and extent of that damage;

Effect of Findings

If the plaintiff has not met this burden of proof,

then your verdict must be for the defendant with respect to the

breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose

claim .

On the other hand, if the plaintiff has met this burden

of proof, then you must consider the defendant' s affirmative

defenses, which are discussed in Instruction Nos. ___ and ___ below.

INSTRUCTION NO.

Breach of Contract Claim

The plaintiff claims that the defendant entered into a

contract with the plaintiff on June 2, 2006, wherein the

defendant agreed to provide the plaintiff with raw beef trim that

was not adulterated with E. coli 0157:H7, and that the defendant

breached this contract by shipping beef trim to the plaintiff

that was adulterated with E. coli 0157:H7.

The defendant denies that it breached the parties '

contract, denies that any act or omission by the defendant was a

direct and proximate cause of the damages the plaintiff has

alleged, and denies the nature and extent of damages alleged by

the plaintiff.

Burden of Proof

Before the plaintiff can recover against defendant

for breach of contract, plaintiff must prove, by the greater

weight of the evidence, each and all of the following:

1) That the plaintiff Cargill and defendant

Greater Omaha entered into the contract;

2) The terms of the contract ;

3) That the defendant breached the contract by

supplying the plaintiff with raw beef trim adulterated with

E. coli Ol57:H7 as of the date of shipment or delivery of the

raw beef trim to plaintiff;

4) That this breach of contract was a proximate

cause of some damage to plaintiff;

5) The nature and extent of that damage.

Effect of Findings

If the plaintiff has not met this burden of proof, then

your verdict as to plaintiff' s breach of contract claim must be

for the defendant.

On the other hand, if the plaintiff has met this

burden of proof, then you must consider defendant' s affirmative

defenses, which are discussed in Instruction Nos. ___ and ___

below.

INSTRUCTION NO.

Notice of Breach of Warranty

In order to recover on any of its breach of warranty

claims, the plaintiff must prove that it notified the defendant

of the breach, and that it did so within a reasonable time

after it discovered or should have discovered the breach.

You must determine what amount of time is

reasonable. In doing so, take into consideration the

circumstances shown by the evidence in this case and the

nature of the act to be done, that is, giving notice.

The notice may be oral or written. It does not have

to be in any particular form and it does not have to use any

particular words. Notice is sufficient if it informs the

defendant of the alleged breach of warranty.

INSTRUCTION NO.

Defendant' s Affirmative

Defenses Contributing Cause

In defense to the plaintiff 's claims, the defendant

claims that the plaintiff was a contributing cause in one or

more of the following ways:

1) In failing to conduct finished-product testing

of its American Chef' s Selection Angus Beef Patties 18-1/3

Pound Patties before shipping said product to its customers;

2) In shipping the American Chef 's Selection Angus

Beef Patties 18-1/3 Pound Patties to its customers without having

a Certificate of Analysis from one or more suppliers evidencing

an absence of E. coli. 0157:H7 in the ingredients in the product;

3) In violating its own Hazard Analysis

Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan.

The plaintiff denies the defendant' s allegations of

contributing cause.

Burden of Proof

In connection with the defendant' s claim that the

plaintiff was a contributing cause, the burden is on the

defendant to prove by the greater weight of the evidence both of

the following:

1) That the plaintiff acted or failed to act in one

or more of the ways claimed by the defendant; and

2) That contributing cause was a proximate cause

of damages sustained by the plaintiff.

Effect of Findings

1) If the defendant has proved this defense by the

greater weight of the evidence, then it is not liable for any

of plaintiff 's claims, and your verdict will be for the

defendant.

2) If the plaintiff has met its burden of proof with

respect to any of its claims and the defendant has not met its

burden of proof with respect to its contributing cause defense,

then you must consider the defendant' s other affirmative

defenses set forth below.

INSTRUCTION NO.

Defendant 's Affirmative

Defenses Product Misuse

In defense to plaintiff 's claims, the defendant also

claims that Cargill misused its raw beef trim by mixing it with

products supplied by three other suppliers, without having a

Certificate of Analysis from all of those suppliers evidencing

that the products had tested negative for the presence of E.

coli 0157:H7, by shipping the American Chef patties without

having

such documentation in its possession, and/or by violating its

own Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point plan.

The plaintiff Cargill denies that it misused the

defendant' s product.

Burden of Proof

In connection with the defendant' s claim that Cargill

misused the product, the burden is on the defendant to prove, by

the greater weight of the evidence, each of the following:

1) That the plaintiff used the defendant 's raw

beef trim as claimed by the defendant;

2) That the defendant could not reasonably

have foreseen such a use of the product; and

3) That this misuse by the plaintiff was a

proximate cause of its own damage.

Effect of Findings

1) If the defendant has proved this defense by the

greater weight of the evidence, then it is not liable for any

of plaintiff 's claims, and your verdict will be for the

defendant.

2) If the defendant has not met its burden of proof

by the greater weight of the evidence, then you must consider

the defendant's other affirmative defenses set forth herein.

INSTRUCTION NO.

A proximate cause is a cause that produces a result in

a natural and continuous sequence, and without which the result

would not have occurred.

INSTRUCTION No.

If you find in favor of plaintiff on any one of its

four claims, then you must determine the amount of the

plaintiff' s damages. The measure of damages is an amount that

would place plaintiff in as good a position as it would have

enjoyed if the defendant would not have breached the contract

and/or express warranty and/or implied warranties. That is, the

measure of the plaintiff damages is the amount that would make

the plaintiff whole.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover expenses the

plaintiff reasonably incurred as a result of the defendant' s

breach.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover all expenses it

incurred because of the defendant' s sale of adulterated beef

trim, including settlements the plaintiff paid to injured

persons, and recall costs which were proximately caused by the

defendant' s breach and that, at the time the contract was

entered into, these damages were a foreseeable result of a breach

of this nature. Damages are foreseeable when they are the kind

that

would ordinarily follow such a breach or when the defendant

either know, or should have known, that such damages were likely

to result from such a breach.

In arriving at the amount of damages, the law

forbids you to return a verdict determined by chance. You may

not, for instance, agree in advance that each juror will state

an amount

to be awarded in damages, that all of those amounts will be

added together, that the total will be divided by the number of

jurors, and that the result will be returned as the jury's

verdict. A verdict determined by chance is invalid. Rather,

you must use your sound judgment based upon impartial

consideration of the evidence.

INSTRUCTION NO.

In the trial of this case and in this charge, I have

in no way attempted to express my opinion as to who should

prevail upon the issues submitted to you. You must not construe

any statement, action, or ruling on my part in the trial of this

case as an indication of any opinion on my part respecting the

proper course of your verdict. During the course of a trial,

I occasionally ask questions of a witness in order to bring out

facts not fully covered in the testimony. Do not assume that I

hold any opinion on the matters to which the questions related.

So regardless of what I may have chosen to say, I

must admonish you that you are the sole judges of the facts,

and your verdict must respond to your own conclusions from the

evidence.

INSTRUCTION No.

Upon retiring to the jury room, you shall first select

one of your number as foreperson to preside over your

deliberations and who alone will sign the verdict form . You will

then proceed immediately with your study and deliberations of

the case.

In arriving at your verdict, remember it must be

unanimous. Short of unanimity, you cannot consider that you

have reached a verdict.

You will take with you a verdict form which you will

use to reflect your verdict.

After you have arrived at your verdict, your

foreperson will simply fill in the appropriate blank spaces

provided in the form of verdict. Your foreperson will then date

and sign the verdict form and this will constitute your verdict.

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to

communicate with the Court , pick up the phone in the jury

deliberation room and the telephone will ring in my office.

Someone will then come to the jury deliberation room to pick

up your note and deliver it to me. Bear in mind you are

not to reveal to me or to anyone else how the jury stands,

numerically or otherwise, until you have reached a unanimous

verdict .

You will be allowed to separate for your meals and

for any necessary intermission between 5 p.m. today and Monday

morning at 9 a.m. In addition, you are to keep in mind all of

the earlier admonitions of the Court and especially to refrain

from any discussion of the case with anyone and to avoid

reading or viewing any news about this case.

As the Judge presiding over the trial, I shall be

available in this building throughout your deliberations and

until your verdict has been returned and shall receive it

promptly upon its return.