Next Easter,

Two corrections are necessary here: 1. Gowling's representation was for the Ad Hoc Committee, not the shareholders in general. I posted this important distinction on this board sometime ago, and 2) Gowling is still the legal counsel for the shareholders as far as the CCAA Court is concerned if you check the Service List on the E&Y site you will see they are still listed as such.

When it comes to legal representation, either the client discharges legal counsel and ends it, or the legal counsel asks the court to be discharged FOR CAUSE. In the latter case, Gowling has never asked the court to release them from the case and their responsibilities toward the AD HIC COMMITTEE. Either that or E&Y negleted to post the discharge on the KRY case docket and to update the Service List.

Why has Gowling not asked to be realeased from their duty as legal counsel to the Ad Hoc Committee  and  thereby effectivibly become a legal non-representation or misrepresentation? That is the US$ 100 million dollar question someone may try to get an answer to in Canadian courts down the road.