jimmijazz can you give me a more precise reference to where Justice Newbould did this? CCAA does not say much about shareholders, s. 6(1) and s. 22.1 make it clear shareholders have no rights regarding a plan of compromise. s. 6(8) makes it clear we are last to be considered - it codifies that ignoring shareholders is fair and reasonable. To be absolutely clear about this, the judge has no duty to consider shareholders - eliminating shares and the removal of voting rights is par for the course. I hope that doesn't happen but it is far more frequent than not. A judge cannot disregard those sections, however, the CCAA gives judges considerable discretion, and whilst shareholders have no "right", a judge may rule either conferring rights or giving consideration to shareholders. I am not aware that Justice Newbould has conferred any rights to shareholders and dismissing the opt-in committee motion is further evidence that there are no rights but he has not prevented ad-hoc representation and has shown a willingness to listen to such representation (although so far he hasn't done us any monetary favours). You mustn't confuse rights and duties with discretionary actions. It would be great if Justice Newbould gave us some rights but I can't see it happening (and it could be terrible for insolvency law in Canada).