This would mean that Gowling had failed for opt out but were allowed an opt in.

No. Gowling failed in EVERY motion they have presented. Opt outs, opt ins, a seat at the table, everything. It should also be noted that Gowling have not gone out of their way to include shareholders. But the opt in committee does exist and Gowling may be preparing new motions, which may or may not succeed. Gowling are the "new" white knight in a long line comprising Tenor, Fung, CITIC, Cramer and many others.

our last 12% was not under threat until Gowling

jimmijazz nothing is under threat until it is. We owned 100% of the net award until Tenor came along and when they did I'm sure you hailed them as our saviours and when they took a percentage you probably said that was fair. And when they lent more and took more you again stood by and watched until at some point - coincidently around the time GRZ won their award - shareholders began to see real dollar signs and as always happens greed and indignation kicks in. If you didn't think what Tenor was doing was fair why didn't you or any of the opt in committee stand up at the time?

Gowling have done nothing to protect the 12%. Be careful making that case as it could mean you will owe them 9% of your total share.

It seems like the biggest loser to a legal fight with Gowling and the ad hock committee who represents opt ins is TENOR and CRYSTALLEX.

Did you manage to keep a straight face writing that! The only harm to Tenor is if Gowling or the noteholders are successful in their litigation. To date, Gowling and noteholder litigation has only harmed shareholders and hugely benefitted Tenor as they had to loan more for a bigger share of the NAP. If the noteholders had not been so litigious and if VZ had not delayed so much, the shareholders share would be much higher - instead Tenor's share is much higher.

Pick whatever word you like Paau.

I would just say "wrong" i.e. if Gowling win some extra money and as a result I benefit then I was wrong.