"As it turns out, hiring Gowlings was an essential move.  Not for the chance of an increased payout, but to prevent the confidentiality agreement providing cover for the company in mistreating the shareholders."

Nothing has turned out.

As far as I can tell Gowling haven't done anything essential. As far as I can tell shareholders haven't been any less mistreated since Gowling came on board. Does anyone feel any less in the dark or more confident that shady deals aren't being done?

The only good that can come from Gowling is if they can increase the payout. Isn't this what they are working for? Do they get paid if they don't increase the payout?

Let's put this in conspiracy terms (Jimmi may like this). Isn't it in Gowling's interests to let Tenor/Fung diminsh the payout even more? And then sweep in and win at least back what was lost so that they get paid? Do you think lawyers wouldn't do that?