Last week I submitted a lengthy list of questions.  Gowling has responded. It is inappropriate to post or quote from their answers.

I have chosen to opt-in.  No one should read that as being based upon anything that Gowlings wrote to me.  I've considered a bunch of sources and came up with my own conclusions.

My thoughts are that it's highly likely that any "improved" tender offer would clearly be for the benefit of all shareholders and not just the opt-ins.  If that's what happens then I'm giving away 9%, so be it.  I believe that the larger the group, the more motivated it would make Gowlings. There is little downside risk for the shareholders as Gowlings must have proceeds to get any revenue and the size of the proceeds pot is based upon the number of shares in the group. 

I don't know if this is possible or legal in Canada, but perhaps there is a scenario that would benefit only the opt-ins.  What if the company pays a flat sum to opt-ins not to have this matter litigated in court.  If the tender offer isn't changed, then it would seem that non-opt-ins have nothing coming to them.

In my mind, I couldn't come up with any scenario where the committee would on it's own tell Gowlings not to proceed as that could create a libility where there is none.   If this is correct, then the break fee issue seems not to be relevant.