These two scenarios are different:

1. Fighting to change the waterfall agreement or otherwise to maximise the financial return to shareholders

2. Fighting to prevent Tenor further reducing or taking the whole pie

For the former, Gowling is now likely the best vehicle to do that. I don't think it will work but that's irrelevant. I'm convinced that Gowling will proceed without me and I am forced to pay for that. Why is a fixed percentage contingency basis so acceptable to opt-ins?

For the latter, I'm not aware if that is within Gowling's terms of reference. Are you prepared to give up 9% of your total award for this representation? It seems a stiff price. Remember the alternative is not losing everything - the alternative is getting a lawyer for a fee.