jimmijazz: you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. It seems you would prefer a long protracted court case with appeals and uncertain future, whereas I'd like a quick out of court settlement.

Paau you are incorrect about what I prefer. I was replying to your statement "The best case is that Gowlings win without going to court and the only cost is for the opt-ins.." I'm trying to understand how you think it is fair that the opt ins who are willing to give up a small % of their settlemnt above what we are already getting should be treated the same as shareholders who are happy with the current 12% that you say we still have left. Why do you think it is unfair that those shareholders who are doing the work for a bigger % and paying for that work deserve less than those shareholders who are sitting on the sidelines.

You think you are special because you signed an opt in document - I think all shareholders are legally entitled to an equal share of the residual company.

I agree all shareholders are legally entitled to an equal share and that is what is happening. We are all sharing equally in the 12% or whatever amount is left by Tenor for us. Some of us don't believe Tenor should have received the amount they did. We have banded together and asked YOU as well as others to join us unless you are happy with what Tenor leaves shareholders. We can't and don't represent you unless you opt in thus we are under no obligation to share any monies Tenor decides to give us over the 12%.

Your position is the same as a person who is in a group of people and the group decides to buy a lottery ticket. They ask you if you want to be part of the group and put in your money. You tell the group they are wasting their time and have no chance of winning. You refuse to put in any money and when the group wins you are front and center with your hand out looking for your share. Sorry Paau that isn't how real life works.

You think it's ok to unilaterally force all shareholders to pay Crystallex and Tenor's defence of the court case you want - I think it is a waste of time and money. (Of no significance it is nevertheless interesting to note that a bankrupt Nortel cost creditors around $2 billion on legal fees fighting various parties after going into CCAA).

Wrong again Paau. I certainly don't want a court case but have been given no other choice by Fung and Tenor. They have refused to act in the best interest of shareholders and have breached their fiduciary duty. They have taken hundreds of millions of dollars that should be going to all shareholders for themselves. IMO they have broken the law. Taking legal action is the only recourse and some shareholders are doing that. Your example of Nortel and $2 billion is so silly it isn't worth commenting on.

I suspect Gowling and the opt in committee are on my side of wanting an out of court settlement. I am certain the court is on my side of treating all shareholders equally in terms of the residual company.

You could be right Paau but you have neglected some points. An out of court settlement may be what is best for everyone and the judge may want all shareholders to be treated equally but I doubt any settlement would be approved by a judge unless the opt ins and committee were made whole with all shareholders. This would make all shareholders responsible for the legal costs and payment to Gowlin.

Here's a simple question: do you think opt ins represent the majority shareholding in the company?

Paau, I was tempted to make a humour comment about how you have avoided simple questions in the past and are now asking me one. My choice is to answer because I have nothing to hide and my opinions are just that my own. Hopefully when I ask you a simple question you will answer like I am.

I honestly don't know the answer but since you asked my opinion I would guess no.