don't have much time buy here goes.

I think you accept that all litigation by Gowling has been a failure so far although it seems you don't want to admit it.

As I asked before what is the litagation so far?

None of what they have done has been about "losing the 12%". The "12%" has not been under threat and if it were there would be time for shareholders to respond without any opt in committee.

If the 12% has not been under threat how did we end up at 12% when we started at over 50% Tenor has chipped the percentage down at a quick rate and you want us to believe that Tenor was never planning to go below 12%. Sounds like collusion between fung and tenor to me when we were told differently.

This is a simple fact and everything Gowling have tried has required Crystallex / Tenor to incur legal costs, at shareholder expense. Every $1 Crystallex spends is now worth roughly $20 of the award. The legal costs Crystallex have incurred since the first DIP loan has cost shareholders perhaps $500m. As I said Nortel spent $2 billion on legal fees, lawyers like CCAA.

Since I'm not a lawyer you will have to explain your 20/1 ratio to me. You keep emphasising that everytime crystallex/tenor go to court it costs shareholders. I don't think anyone disagrees. Lawyers cost money! When Crystallex went to court to file for CCAA it cost shareholders money. When they files with ISCID it cost money which cost all shareholders. You seem ok with shareholders losing money for some court action that takes our award percentage down to 12% but have an issue with court action that could bring shareholders much more than 12%. Sounds like as long as tenor is winning your happy and when shareholders want more than 12% you are unhappy. Good deal for Tenor.

But you are right that the game is not over yet. Gowling could come good. I would be very happy if that happened and as I've said hopefully via an out of court early settlement. And if that happens you will get the best possible outcome - I'll get slightly more but that really shouldn't upset you.

Would you be getting more as Tenor or are you saying that you would be getting more because we had to pay Gowling to fight for more and you decided to suckle away at our expense? You would be correct assuming everyone not represented by Gowling and the committee was part of the settlement. Not sure how that would happen with an out of court settlement where you have no representation.

Most likely all shareholders will lose a lot of time and some money paying for Gowling to fail again. Do you find it ironic that you will be paying for Fung to prevent you from getting a bigger share of the award? No matter how successful Gowling is, Fung won't lose a cent.

I don't know enough to say Fung wouldn't lose anything. Does it bug me that as shareholders we have to pay Fungs legal expenses to fight against shareholders? YES but that is the way the system works so I have to respect it. Just like you need to repspect the committee fighting for fairness for all shareholder who want them to fight for them.

This is all contingent on VZ paying - Tenor is still carrying a huge risk, they could lose it all.

Doesn't seem like much of a risk to me considering this is what they do. They gamble 50 million(?) trying to win a BILLION.