I don't know why people choose to get their feathers ruffled up by 'Paau'.
There is an argument for not opting in.
There is an argument for not buying CRY in the first place.
My guess is that most shareholders when presented with the pros and cons would choose to opt-in - we are afterall high-risk takers. I view the chance of Gowling being successful as very low. I do not think this judge will risk setting a precedent which could negatively impact future loans for CCAA companies.
My guess is that the judge cannot legally ignore the criminal code, when and if it is cited. Is the waterfall agreement goign to supersede criminal law?
http://www.mcmillan.ca/Canadian-interest-rate-rules
(1) criminal rate of interest
Under section 347 of the
Criminal Code (Canada), interest rates exceeding 60% per annum are "criminal rates of interest".
...
I'm also dying to find out what other breaches of fiduciary duty management has made while securing their MIP, leaving us high and dry.
None of which would come to light if the shareholder committee didn't get representation, and I for one am happy to be on board to see this through, and all for the low rate of 9%. IMHO, management always had its own interests prioritized, and I don't even remember Fung owning any sizeable amount of shares in the past decade?
