Paau, perhaps I didn't understand exactly what you posted.

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.)

After reading it again you may have explained it and I just was not able to grasp your answer. Let me paraphrase and correct me if I am wrong.

You are saying we shouldn't opt in and should chose to opt out. Doing this according to what you posted above is supporting the position shareholders should shut up, sit back and take what we get. Am I reading it correctly? If so, then you have reinforced the concern some posters have that suggest you are not simply here to debate questions and explore options, you are here to convince shareholders to sit back and relax and trust Tenor/Fung despite the criminal interest rate they set up before Tenor became Fungs paymaster as you put it.

JJ