Thanks Paau

I'm enjoying my bubble.

We both know your statement The only impact of more opt ins (from a legal perspective) is that it makes it more profitable for Gowling. Even the judge told you this. is not true. The more opt ins, the more the court can see this is not just a few people who think Fung and Tenor screwed shareholders and broke the law.

I really like the part where you say No, what you suggest is impossible. And even so, don't you think there are many more than just one other possibility? e.g. Fung could develop a conscience, or Tenor change their business model to philanthropy, or ...

My thought was Tenor and Fung would grudginling try and salvage as must of the award as they can. Your idea is Fung developes a conscience and Tenor becomes the next Bill Gates foundation giving money away happily.

Looks like you want a chair in my bubble!

We are well aware that you think we are all going to get nothing by opting in. You are already wrong on that account. Since the committee has been formed and Gowlin has become involved Tenor and Fung have not lowered our percentage of the award. You think it is because Fung developed a conscience and Tenor became a philanthropists. 

JJ