bmh - no, you are misrepresenting my view. I don't think we should have tried to get the court to "legitimize" the committee and of course after the fact I appear to be right and it did cost shareholders money. I, personally, have likely lost some money over an action I never asked for nor wanted. I think you are wrong to say that we have nothing more to lose.

One thing we agree on is that Gowling may be the best way shareholders gain more than currently on offer. How big a chance is that? Near zero imho. But Criminal Code 347 has produced a few surprises in the courts so if you like to clutch at straws it is possible these straws come from carbon fibre - personally I think it will fail based on the "transaction as of the time" and that Tenor could not predict their return (or if they would get any return). I guess at some point e.g. when GRZ won their award the predictability changed and maybe there are indications during the course of the ICSID case that Gowling can use. Perhaps that is why the 4th DIP financing is also mentioned.

The good news (for you) is that no matter my opinion it looks like Gowling will go ahead with litigation. I will be very interested to read their factum.