What has happened at Navistar over the past three years is not simply a matter of poor business judgment – as far as I am concerned it represents a blatant, ongoing disregard for the success of the company and a long track record of ignoring the perilous situation the company is in, while rewarding the strategy and management team that got us here. In my opinion, by damaging our company and its prospects, the Navistar Board has also exposed itself to significant risk of personal liability both as a result of its continuing reckless disregard for the needs of the company and the requirements of its business, and by adoption of a poison pill in the unique circumstance existing at Navistar. With only four holders owning more than a majority of the Navistar shares, even the "normal" flimsy justifications used to support a Board's decision to adopt a poison pill -- to protect the fragmented shareholders from the influence of an acquisitive shareholder -- are non-existent, and this pill is exposed for what I think it really is -- a bad faith, self interested maneuver by the Board to protect its fees and perks.As I have previously stated, I intend to move forward pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law to obtain information regarding what to me are the obvious failures at Navistar. I would prefer to amicably resolve this matter with Navistar and not engage in the tiresome and expensive process of protracted litigation and a proxy fight----all of which only make the company's lawyers and advisors rich at my (and your) expense. However, if the Board continues to follow the advice of those same advisors, and fails to recognize the right of an owner to have a legitimate say in the conduct of the business that it owns, then I will have little choice but to do this "the hard way" and proceed as I consider appropriate when forced to deal with an entrenched Board intent on self protection at all cost.