jimmijazz your forensic approach does you credit. Context as you know is important. I'll try to address all of your questions but so as not to be all over the place I'll try to provide a coherent answer rather than answer specific questions - if I miss something I'm sure you will point it out. Of course, this is my opinion.

First off we will assume that there is some money to give out.

1. Tenor try to take some or all of what the waterfall provisions provide for shareholders.

For me, shareholders should have a strong case to prevent this and might need legal representation. Gowling might be a suitable law firm or there might be a better one but the opt-in process and contingency arrangement is not ideal. If it exists (and clearly it does) then I have no problem if the opt-in committee uses Gowling (it will be wasteful of your money but you knew that going in). If the opt-in committee chooses not to use Gowling you might need to check the break clause - I haven't.

2. Shareholders take the money provided by the waterfall provision.

This is the opt-out position. No money wasted trying to get more, no time wasted whilst it goes through court and appeal(s). (Note that whomever wins in court the other party is likely to go to appeal and nothing will be paid out whilst this goes on.)

3. Shareholders want more money.

This is the opt-in position. Gowling is now the best route for this. They are the best chance shareholders get more money and de facto this is the current position and whether I like it or not I will lose more money or gain more money depending upon how Gowling do. As I've said, Gowling likely have a threshold number of shares (% of total) that makes litigation worthwhile to them and my guess is that we have reached that point (but I have no facts on this) - it is likely around 40% - maybe you know better where they are at.

If anyone had asked me, as you now know, I would have voted against this option. So far Gowling have not succeeded in court and all the money spent so far was unnecessary i.e. it has not improved future prospects. Regardless of whether they win in future we have still lost some money (it is small right now, it will get bigger as/if they proceed). Win or lose, all shareholders will pay the cost of defending against Gowling through appeal(s). Opt-ins will pay an additional 9% of whatever Gowling win. As I've said, I don't think they will win anything so you can see I should not be happy with the opt-ins but like you I've been screwed by Fung/Tenor so I know the anger and the desire for justice. You have a right to do this even if I believe it will partly be at my expense without my approval.

I haven't been through the opt-in agreement and I have no idea what steps the opt-in committe took in negotiating the agreement with Gowling. This might be a good agreement it might not - if anyone has taken legal advice it would be nice to share with the other opt-ins. An arrangement where Gowling got more the higher the win - a waterfall provision if you like - would be my starting point.