I think we had a shot with Gowling and it didn't cost us anything as Gowling took it on as a contengency case. That was their choice. Now without the possibility of them going forward we still need representation in further actions with Judge Hainey. With that said and the hindsight available law firms will now require a signed retainer to represent the Shareholder Committee. I have not heard a comment as to who is going to pay for that representation. Now Gowling is still involved "in a small way" according to what I understand so it could be construed that they are still involved in our representation. Until they actually sign a document that they are no longer representing the Shareholder Committee by law they still have to represent us by all available means unless the Shareholder Committee has breached the agreement created from the start of that relationship.

     Judge Hainey is a competent judge with years of experience performing in cases like ours and one can conclude that he isn't going to be pushed around by the Tenor/Fung group. He understands this case and in that vein he has us in his sights and has a good idea of what should be coming to the shareholders based on the merits. He is well ahead of how he plans on directing this case as it moves through his court. 

     How much we end up with is nothing but speculation for all involved as there are too many personalities involved and so many ways to manipulate the law. The Shareholder Committee has been a benefit for all shareholders as they put real faces in front of the judge to see. That has value in my opinion even if the current circumstances remain the same.