jimmijazz - I don't find it useful to respond to your ideas about my motives - you don't like what I post so attacking me or my motives somehow makes what I say wrong? Is that your view? Would it be too much to stick to the issues?

Why do you think the judge warned about a possible increase in litigation? He didn't say whether the litigation was necessary or unnecessary - personally I think necessary litigation is something he cannot complain about and that he is only warning off unnecessary litigation and as a shareholder the idea of unnecessary litigation is what concenrs me the most.

I don't really understand why you have a problem with this. I put unnecessary in because we want Gowling to pursue litigation that has a good chance of success and if the judge is warning us off that then screw him. I think it is obvious he is warning the opt-ins away from unnecessary (frivolous, etc.) litigation.

Regardless of the necessity, all litigation by Gowlings has and will continue to reduce the pot for shareholders but hopefully the winning litigation, if there is any, will more than offset these costs.