Auntie, a very good disection of the information. One point that I think that is sometimes missed here is that I think we can all agree that any extra money that will be recovered by Gowlings will be shared with all shareholders. I doubt any judge would view it other wise. In doing that I would also assume that the judge would order the legal costs to recover this extra money should be split equally amongst everyone benefiting not just the opt ins.

I think Gowlings is refering to a possible offer from Tenor to settle the with the committee. Should that happen the committee is under no obligation to consider shareholders who have not opted in since they don't represent them. You can't make any deal for people who have not agreed to for you to represent their interests. This is where IMO the comments about not everyone benefitting that doesn't opt in comes from.

This doesn't mean that the committee is looking for a deal but they have been forced to do an opt in because Tenor objected to including all shareholders. Why would they do that?

Just my 2 cents.