jimmijazz: I understand your frustration with Fung and Tenor. I know this drives you ignoring the majority shareholding to pursue a near hopeless case. You obviously come at the fairness aspect from a biased position but that doesn't necessarily make you wrong.

OK, perhaps there are the following possibilities:

1. Gowling sue and lose - all shareholders pay Crystallex and Tenor legal costs to achieve their win

2. Gowling sue and win and all shareholders get the same improved settlement, opt ins pay Gowling their fess, all shareholders pay Crystallex and Tenor legal costs for their loss

3. Gowling sue and win and the court settlement pays Gowling fees out of the total pool (as well as Crystallex and Tenor costs) and all shareholders get an equal amount of what remains

4. Gowling sue and win, all shareholders pay Crystallex and Tenor legal costs but only opt ins pay Gowling costs and only opt ins get the improved reward.

Option 1 is what I expect. Option 2 is what your signed agreement with Gowling is and what Gowling expect going in. Option 3 makes a mockery of opting in, essentially all shareholders are being forced to opt in and the court has said it doesn't want this. This would be worse than the initial opt out idea. Under option 3 the opt ins get nothing more than option 2 so it makes no difference to you. The only benefit is a bonus to Gowling. Yet you seem to think anything else is unfair for you. Option 4 would be very hard for the court to agree to especially with the majority shareholding not opting in and of course every non-opt in could then sue for at least the same benefit. Courts don't like to have the same class of creditor treated differently.

Do you see a different option? Please note that an out of court settlement will still need to be ratified by the court.

Maybe I should form my own ad-hoc opt in committee (probably just myself). I'll join with whatever Gowling do so my lawyers (i.e. me) get the same bonus donated by all shareholders. That would only be fair.