Yes, he has that discretion. It was also at his discretion to "legitimize" the opt-in committee - he chose not to. Even if he does sympathise with us (very unusual in CCAA) I would be amazed if he would overturn his own rulings and say that he allowed criminal interest rates. It would throw into chaos all DIP loans. Gowling are aware of this and perhaps expect the real argument to go before the appeal court, don't expect quick results.

The thing with lawyers acting on a contingency basis is that we tend to think of legal costs being so high they wouldn't want to waste so much money but one bill I had was $40,000+ of which less than $400 were real costs - the rest were fees. Yes, they will spend time on the case and time is money but it is amazing how a contingency case like this will just get added to the pile and everyone in the law firm will maintain the same utilisation rate and billable hours.