easter: "we need to know if Gowlings is representing shareholders"

They never were but I suspect you know that and mean is Gowling still representing the opt in committee. I don't know why one of you hasn't contacted the opt in committee and asked. Maybe you have but don't want to share the info?

As regards the opt in process, Gowling tried, they lost (in fact there isn't a single action they took in the courts that did succeed). There is nothing more they can do as regards the court ordered DIP agreements (all 10 of them).

As regards the "criminal code", the appellate Justices noted: "Finally, he [the motion judge] stated that the claims regarding the criminal interest rate were bound to fail because the DIP financing agreements did not require, and in fact prohibited, the payment of interest at a criminal interest rate." But no motion has been brought before the court to test this (because no leave to do so was granted) and cannot be now. Even though any claim was "bound to fail" we will never know.

It would be nice if someone posted something that corrected this but I suspect that won't happen and you will just get to read more vitriol and pointless attacks.

When I first posted the (correct) view that Gowling and the opt in process was a waste of time and shareholder money, many claimed it was either opt in or get nothing. Fortunately, as I also pointed out, this is a false dichotomy, and with Gowling out of the picture, shareholders are not left with nothing. Sadly, we don't know how much is left because they won't tell us what the amended settlement agreement is (or even what the waterfall terms are).

Despite all the ridiculous conspiracy theories some here like to promote, there is actually a hidden danger, as evidenced by all the redacted documents. The conspiracy nuts like to think that Tenor/Fung are hiding this info from shareholders but why would they bother? They have already taken 88%, made close to $1 billion in profit, what do they care about under $80m that might end up with shareholders? Tenor have already agreed to give Fung more than that, it's loose change for them. No, the real scary people (for Tenor) are not shareholders but those who threaten the $1 billion windfall.