tell us how you would fight Tenor

Once ICSID granted the award the game changed. Shareholders now have legally defensible rights over the company's assets. We are still bottom of the food chain but we are at least now on that chain.

Fighting to move up the chain, in effect what you hope Gowling will do, is a totally different prospect (legally) to fighting to not be kicked off the chain.

Spending money on the former is just throwing it away (imho), spending money on the latter is mandatory.

For those who prefer an argument in more legal terms. In Re Canadian Airlines Corp Madam Justice Paperny held that "Shareholders cannot reasonably expect to maintain a financial interest in an insolvent company where creditors' claims are not being paid in full". In Stelco Inc (Re) Justice Farley essentially concluded that where a company appears to be successfully coming out of insolvency a careful examination should be performed before equity interest is eliminated. However, he did rule against shareholders saying their claim was: “a desperation Hail Mary pass and the willingness of someone, without any of his own chips in the poker game willing to bet the farm of someone else who does have an economic interest in Stelco."

Is it possible that some shareholders (particularly small retail shareholders) do not understand what being in CCAA means? In essence, shareholders were responsible for appointing management that led the company to insolvency, not the creditors. Shareholders lost all rights to be rewarded for this until and unless creditors are made whole. Tenor provided the money to achieve this under terms which the court determined were "proper, fair and reasonable". Shareholders did not and have not objected to this - although Gowling may make a desperation Hail Mary pass in due course.