Paau, shame on you. Being a lawyer and one that seems very familiar with this case you should know better.

Opting in is based on hope and not on legal argument? Is that what you are saying?  When you want something to happen (i.e. hope) sometimes you ignore the warning signs, that's all I have ever said.

Don didn't say that but nice spin. The legal argument has nothing to do with hope and that is why you and I'm guessing others in the know are so worried. None of us opt ins are hopeful that usery means  "the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest." It is a FACT that is what it means. You as a lawyer know that is what it means and it is not subject to your defination. Canadian law uses 60% as the maximum figure which again you know. Don oviously refered to hope in terms of Gowlings getting justice for shareholders. The legal system will decide based on the law and best argument not hope which is what we all want.

I thought being continually beaten up by this stock would have knocked "hope" out of the equation. I guess not. This situation is the definition of hopeless, but like you, I too sometimes forget that.

Gowlings and the Ad Hoc committee have not beaten us up. The only beating we have received has been by Fung, Oppie, Crystallex, Tenor and others who are shareholders in sheeps clothes. Our hope has been renewed with Gowlings actions that shareholders voices will finally be heard not just the ones Fung and Crystallex wants heard. The situation was never hopeless only directionless before the Ad Hoc committee. 

Please don't get your hopes up too high on Gowling and the opt in committee. Whilst it is true that their self interest coincides with yours, keep at least in the back of your mind that they do not act for you.

Nice try Paau. Mix the groups together with some truth in hopes we don't notice. Unless there is a new opt in committee that we are unaware of there is no opt in committee. There is an Ad Hoc committee and opt-in shareholders so by mixing the two together you get a group that doesn't exist thus you are correct the opt in committee that doesn't exist does not act for us.

You couldn't say Gowling and the Ad Hoc committee because that would be untrue. On the Gowling web page http://ca.gowlingwlg.com/crystallex/  about Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP and the committee and you will see the following:

Gowlings' mandate is to act on the instructions of the Committee, to represent the interests of the Committee members and the shareholders who opt in to be represented by the Committee (the "Opt In Shareholders"). 

We are all aware that Gowling represents the Ad Hoc committee and not shareholders. It is the Ad Hoc committee that represents the opt ins. Anyone who has opted in knows that but thanks for reminding us.

Paau what is also amazing about what you post is how you manage to finally state the true when you say "It is a fact that (at the time of the sworn statement) 132 out of 350 shareholders who expressed an interest had not opted in." and then follow it up by putting out the following "This is fact (assuming Fine didn't commit perjury) not speculation or spin."

To even suggest Fine of perjury is beyond bold. What evidence do you have to even suggest such a thing? To make this statement you would need to have read all material unredacted and know there was an error. Is that the case? I guess it could be from something else like the conference call between Fine and Oppenheimer, David Kay and someone else I can't remember right now. That is the conversation that Fine would like on the record but the others might or have claimed privilege. Is it from something like that?

Don't feel like going back thought all your posts since you started on Feb. 18th 2017 almost a year ago by telling us not to opt in to check and see if you thought any of Fungs affidavits were worthy of the same statement about (assuming didn't commit perjury). My memory says you have never questioned any one else's affidavits just Fine's. Please point out to me my mistake so I can correct myself if I'm wrong.

I keep asking myself why you would even suggest such a thing. I have never meet Mr. Fine but I have met Mr. Fung. Had a private conversion with him at the last AGM. I can tell you who I would trust right now.

An interesting thing happens when I read Mr. Fine's affidavit. Each time I read it to check something out I hear small footsteps. They get louded each time I read it but I haven't been able to place the sound until I saw this cartoon. Hope you enjoy it as much as I do.