Don-wys - can you remind me of your reasons for opting in?

I have but will again explain my reasons for not opting in (but this is at your insistence, I have not and will not try to persuade anyone of what they should do):

1. I see no reasonable chance of improving the waterfall agreement in court. This is based on both my personal knowledge and experience of the law and colleagues who have considerable experience both in CCAA and the criminal code. The situation we have right now is that the waterfall provision was presented to the court, many parties had input yet it was agreed by the court. Do you understand that this is different to for example you entering into a contract which has a high interest rate and the court is asked to determine for the first time if it is criminal? The argument to change the court approved waterfall provision needs to be not just persuasive but to also demonstrate that the court was hoodwinked. But this is not legal advice to you. As I have also said there is a chance, mostly because a lot of information is redacted.

2. Given that I see no value in opting in, it is not a case of having nothing to lose by opting in. Litigation will cost shareholders, both time and money. By opting in, as the judge warned, I might influence more unnecessary litigation. You might believe that Gowling would never do that - a lawyer behave altruistically, there is about as much chance of that as winning on criminal code 347.

3. The opt in committee's contingency arrangement is in my opinion a very poor approach to protecting our current interest in the award (if Fung / Tenor were to try to change it further).

I have said what I think you should do: whatever you feel is necessary to make up your own mind. I hope that includes considering arguments that you clearly find distasteful.