Thanks, no problem. We are getting thick skinned like turtles. Anyhow looking back I posted this on March 28.2017:

" I don't think the court would treat the same class of shareholder differently, simply because they used a lawyer working on a contingency basis but it is possible," (This is a quote from Paau which I responded to)

(My response)

When Gowling came up with the opt-in offer I made a similar comment in earlier posts and was hesitant about opting in. Made many comments questioning the need to opt-in at that time because I didn't think same sharehplders can be treated differently whether you opt-in or not, and that all will be included in the final judgement.

But I decided to opt-in  to give strength to our purpose for equal justice and felt 9% was worth the cost (End of  my response)

As I was contemplating whether or not to opt-in, even before the above re-post i could not ever see how the courts could not treat all shareholders equally. And leave it there. So in this respect I tend to agree with Paau. I will cede to his experience as a lawyer and knowledge of the law about how judgements are treated. Probably will bring out another laugh.  Enjoy.

My reason for joining was to bolster the strength and effectiveness of the Committees stonewalling Tenor's attempts to eliminate us. My arguement against Paau is him going back and forth about the opt-in question and in my opinion  does not support " Let Right Prevail" which could not occur without the stamina to continue and the strength of millions of shares.

So, all would benefit, some less than others.