I've been asked this question: "if you think the shareholders that are not in Gowlings plan will receive any award if there is any?" The question seems to ignore that Gowling is trying to win a bigger share of the award - shareholders will still get what the court has approved regardless of what Gowling do i.e. if Gowling win an extra 1% (worth perhaps $10m or c.$300,000 to Gowling and extra 2 cents/share) - shareholders still get the c.12% (25 cents/share) currently allocated.

Canadian law (see: Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44, s.24(3)) is very clear that the same class of shares are entitled to equal treatment and therefore the actions of Gowling, if they affect a class of shares, must affect all shares in that class equally (see for example: Jacobsen v. United Canso Oil & Gas Ltd., 1980). In addition, 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.

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.

The real question is whether Gowling can win a bigger award at all, whether Tenor and/or other parties leave any award for the shareholders and whether VZ ever pay up and how much.

It is reasonable to expect that if an award is paid to the company that all shareholders will receive something (and at least exactly the same something - possibly slightly more for non opt-ins).

It is not reasonable, given the info we have to date, to expect Gowling to win a greater award for any shareholders but of course Gowling and opt ins likely disagree with that view.

It is uncertain whether more of the award will need to be given up to finance execution of the award. It is rare that a company successfully executes an award by seizing sovereign assets (perhaps never).

It is a guess as to when VZ will be in a position to pay and whether they have to pay the full award.