That's a well written letter and I hope it has some impact.

The law isn't usually sympathetic to shareholders who led a company to insolvency. Courts generally favour those responsible for resurrecting the company even if at the expense of pre-existing shareholders. Given that pre-existing shareholders were responsible for the failure, why should they reap any benefit at all (benefit which only came about because of an infusion of Tenor capital)?

The most apt quote I can offer is: "...equity investors bear the risk relating to the integrity and character of the management." (Justice Pepall) Shareholders appointed Fung and the Crystallex board that resulted in CCAA, in Tenor and in Fung getting obscene rewards.