I realise the first part was another poster but included it because it was ovious that you were refering to it thus the basis for you comments.

Again what are you saying.

"Any idea how long they will last from the cash given to them by the opt ins? Let's see, you gave them $0, Don gave them $0, Jimmi gave them $0, the opt in committee gave them $0 - not sure of my math but I think that adds up to $0. Now if I opted in that would add another $0. That could last a very long time - at a guess maybe 0 days plus/minus 0 days.

You are refering to Gowlin when you say they and them. You are asking how long Gowlin can last with no cash from us. They took the case knowing there was no cash from us. They knew who Tenor was before taking the case. Gowling made a choice when they took the case. Get results or don't get paid. I see no reason they would run out of money can you.

Now your reply to Don:

Don - NO! I see no evidence of sympathy. The court (ICSID) showed no sympathy but it did follow the law. As have all the various courts who have been asked to uphold the ICSID ruling - none of this is about sympathy. It is simply about the law.

Exactly, the court follows the law. I doubt the ICSID court took any personal feelings into account. I also expect the new judge will follow the law. If Fung and Tenor broke the law (I'm no lawyer but my guess is they did) then he will rule on the law even if the first judge errored.

A judge granted the waterfall agreement (whatever it actually is), shareholders said nothing. It was only after GRZ won their award that shareholders started to take notice of what was going on and even then they did nothing despite having the opportunity. I'm not convinced the opt in committee are being totally open to ordinary opt ins (who presumably are paying the bulk of the costs if successful yet have zero information or influence).

How would you know shareholders said nothing unless you are aware of NDA communications. Now you are suggesting the opt in committee is not being open with opt ins. Since you are not an opt in how would you know anything about the opt ins and committee? I though we all agreed everyone was paying the same ZERO unless successful. How are the opt ins paying the bulk? Eveyone pays the same percentage. More red herrings.

Paau you did a good job for quite awhile not looking like a Tenor schill after a rough start on the board. Why change now. Noose tightening?

Is it so far fetched to imagine this forum slagging off the opt in committee / Gowling in due course? Maybe but it would be consistent with the track record. Are they real white knights or just the latest?

Don't understand slagging? So you are back to questioning the committee and Gowling? Again we here ask you why are you here to trash our efforts for a fair deal after getting taken to the cleaners by Fung and your tenor boys.