Hey HB
Has anyone reasoned that this asking for add on litigants is really just about the Fee? If Gowling said to the original litigants "hey the fee here is XX% or a minimum of $$$...." this could be a big reason to admit some more litigants at this time.
You would be correct if this was true but it is incorrect. The fee is a set percentage of what is clawed back. The only fee Gowlings gets besides what they claw back is the retainer fee the original 9 paid on their own to hire Gowlings. Once you read the agreement everything is explained. You are free to ask questions or hire a lawyer to review the documents if you have any concerns. There is no arm twisting to get more opt ins. When Gowlings is successful it would possibly be better with less opt ins.
Also the judge might more readily accept the arguments of a large percentage of common share holders rather than just nine or ten. So, is it safe to say Gowling might only need 50% of the commons to show a majority or maybe the shareholders need add-ons to cover the minimum fee?
You are correct about having more shareholders being better than just a few when challanging Tenor and management in court about their duty to shareholders. If you read the agreement should you apply you will see that you are way off base on the minimum fee comments. There was more than enough shares with the original 9 for Gowlings to go ahead. That alone should tell you how much Gowlings thinks they can claw back. They don't need the opt ins to move forward but you are correct they possibly could make more money with more opt ins.
Who would get paid and in what percentage by the Judge? Just the litigants or anyone still holding Crystallex shares in an account, or only those named in the lawsuit?
That is the real question HB. The original 9 wanted everyone included and Tenor and management fought against it and did so for a reason. Tenor and management suggested an opt in plan so the committee changed they motion for opt in with hopes it would be accepted. Despite Tenor and Fung suggesting the opt in they fought against it in court.
As to who should get paid I can only voice my personal opinion. IMO, only those who opt in and are will to give up a small percentage of any extra money should be rewarded. Those shareholders who want to sit on the sidelines without opting in are saying they aren't willing to fight for a fairer share of the award. This may sound callous but that is the way I feel. If shareholders aren't willing to stand up and fight, then don't expect the spoils when those of us who are willing to fight do all the work.
That said who knows what the judge will do. He seems to be a fair guys who has allowed shareholders to survive when some judges may not have. He also seems like the kind of guy who wouldn't listen to shareholders who chose to try a free ride and didn't get included in the extra money.
I suggest that everyone think about why Tenor and management want as few shareholders as possible involved!
JJ
