Well, this begs the question, how would Gowlings protect themselves for payment if they have no control over your shares somehow. How do they guarantee their payment? Sounds all and good if they are willing to take my word or sign an agreement. Have to read the fine print carefully.

I'm sure there will something about ensuring payment but if this is run threw the court wouldn't their % come from the award. In otherwards we agree that should Gowling be successful they are entitled to their 9%.

Here is another point. Let's say of the 426M shareholders only about 100M shareholders commit to Gowling and they are sucessful in increasing the award to 20% does that mean the 100M shareholders split 20% of their commitment (less 9% of 4% increase) and the other 326M shareholders are stuck at 14%?

Don't have that answer but I hope that is the case. The reverse of your question is if those who opt in and give a fee of 9% for anything over our current % are paying to get the extra money can people who didn't opt in and help get their percentage for free? Not sure where this is headed but I think only those people who are willing to pay Gowling by way of the 9% should be entitled to any extra money. Those who don't opt in either don't care or are happy with what Tenor gives them.

I also think the potential for Gowling to ask for 30% is reasonable because we as shareholders need $500M out of the $1.4B to break even. That is $1 per share. Hmmm, interesting and attractive.

I will give Gowling 9% over and above my expectation of about $48,000 at 40c per share now. Right now we are at approx $200M with a bit over 400M shares outstanding.

The other issue is maybe we need Gowling to prevent Fung taking out our remaining 14% away from us.

I agree with all these comments. My take is if the shareholder committee did stand up Fung would have made sure we got nothing.

JJ