Interesting read.

Remember also that as far as the court is concerned opt ins have no greater standing than any shareholder (the court refused to formally recognise the opt in committee). I believe that a shareholder (Mr. Reyes?) is not allowed to be an opt in and the court is well aware of him and I don't see how the court could allow opt ins to get more than Mr. Reyes.

I've been asked if you are Tony Reyes? 

I believe the reason you ( if you are Mr. Reyes) couldn't be an opt in is that you already have representation before the court. You can't be represented by Gowling as well.

if Gowling did some side deal with Tenor/Crystallex, non-opt ins would be able to sue for "fair" value of their shares. It should be simple to show that fair value is at least exactly what the opt ins received, probably slightly more.

I've also been asked if Mr. Reyes has a side deal with Fung and Tenor thus his decidion to side with management. If the assumption that Mr. Reyes did a deal with Fung and Tenor is true, do you think shareholders could sue him if his deal got him more than other shareholders?

I wonder if the people asking you questions are the same ones asking me questions?