I brought this up a while back. The shareholder committee, as they now call themselves, initially wanted to represent all shareholders. That looked to be the right way to do it because it was not so much about their small group but more about all shareholders. Things changed.

JC it is a shame that you are taking this approach. You say things changed. We both know that if you read the documents at the monitors web site the answers are there.

The shareholder committee wanted the court to order the committee as an OPT OUT committee so every shareholder would be represented. When the other parties (Tenor, Kry, etc.) fought against this the shareholder committee tried to be recogonised at an OPT IN so all shreholders could have the option of being represented in the committee order by the court. When the other parties (Tenor, Kry, etc.) fought against this the judge chose to support an Ad Hoc shareholder committee without a court order.

You are well aware of this from our previous discussions. It was not the shareholder committee that want to change it was what was allowed to have a voice. To suggest there is a nefarious reason the committee is asking SHAREHOLDERS to opt when you know the truth reinforces why only legitimate shareholders can get the documentation.

It is interesting that they went with the opt-in approach pushed by "Fung and the Boys" and suggested/recommended by the judge. Hope not, but almost feels like the shareholder committee is doing the bidding of Fung and the Boys. And the portion you point out reinforces it is about the committee, not shareholders in general.

You are suggestiong the Ad Hoc shareholder committee is working with "Fung and the Boys" which is so ludicrous it doesn't deserve a response but I will give you one anyway since you will not have access to the agreement unless someone gives it to you because you own no shares.

The documentation from Gowlings will make it clear they are not working with "Fung and the Boys" . If anyone doubts that they will probably chose not to OPT IN.

One last comment about your concern about opt In vs opt out. Since the court has not order the committee to be either and supported an Ad Hoc committee it is impossible for Gowlings or anyone else to go to court and say they represent a shareholder unless they have your permission to do so OPT OUT is not an option. The only option is OPT IN which is what they are doing.

JJ