"They get info out faster than the monitor."

I don't see much info that the monitor should or would report - what are you referring too?

The motion is imho premature, if it fails it will be a huge setback for the opt ins. If it succeeds I expect several lawsuits to follow.

It looks like Gowling will go for "oppression (unfair disregard?)" and breach of the criminal code. I'm still not convinced there is a case but we may get to see.

Also noted that 218 shareholders (out of 350 who expressed an interest - so does that mean 132 chose not to opt in - it isn't just me?!) have opted in comprising nearly 30% of shares. That should be a good enough number for Gowling.

Did you see that Gowling use an "almost 90%" number but Fine has to redact it? (Do you think Gowling was supposed to redact that?)