Paau, only you know what your motives are. I and others can speculate on what they are. From the posts I've seen everyone seems to have a similar opinion of your motives. I would much prefer to stick to the issues. I guess the question is what issues should we discuss.

You want to characterize the judges comments as a warning. I certainly don't see it that way.

You now admit the judge didn't say unnecessay but have still failed to mention why you decided to leave out: In saying that, I do not in any way suggest that Gowlings would not act appropriately for their clients.

To me this sure sounds like he is endorsing Gowling as a reputable firm that would have it's clients best interest in any action.

I also want to point out that since you like sticking to issues and your suggestion there is no reason to opt in is covered by the judges comments. The part of the judges comments that you added the word or unsaid word unnecessay gives you the answer.

I recognize that the larger the shareholder group represented by Gowlings, the larger the incentive might be for Gowlings to pursue litigation.

Anyone using a law firm would want them as incentified as possible. The judge's comments about the size of the shareholder group were because the committee members wanted everyone to be included through an opt out clause that would have ensured all shareholders were covered. Tenor and Fung fought against this not because they wanted to save money for shareholders but because they didn't want anyone to stop what they were doing.

You have said in past posts that the company is no longer ours and now belongs to Tenor.

"Tenor have done a lot behind our backs and I think it is fair to say that it is their company now not ours. I don't know if we have any rights any more or if the court has any duty to shareholders now. CCAA is for the benefit of creditors.

So in your opinion shareholders have no rights and the court has no duty to us. This is in direct conflict to what the judge has done so far. This is in direct conflict to what Fung has said under oath. Given your legal wisedom that Tenor owns the company what do we have to lose by opting in when it doesn't cost us anything unless Gowling who will be spending their own money are right?

As I said earlier it seems like most posters here have a pretty good handle on you without me saying a word. Despite us being idiots for believing anything Crystallex said to us, you are dealing with some sharp posters.

JJ