Nobody hates you JC. Don't think that was ever said by anyone who disagreed with you. Some posters struggle to understand why a person with no interest in a company spends so much time defending them. I certainly don't blame you since I don't know you. If you are Fung then I may change my mind.
The only people to blame are the people who made the decisions and that would be Fung and management. Can't blame the noteholders or tenor for being greedy and wanting everything. I was one of the lucky shareholders who actually spoke to Fung at the AGM. I can't say it enough: Fung over promised and under delievered. I could blame Richard Marshall but he was just saying what he was told to say. Richard actually spent his own money buying shares so I have a soft spot for him.
Let's look at your only real comment which once again defends management: The judge has seen the redacted portions and still made the judgement despite the interest rate.
You may have missed or chose not to read my response to your assumption that judge was ok with us getting screwed. Here it is again to save time:
Saying the judge had no problem is beyond misleading, The judge can only rule on what he is given and he was given a bag of crap from management. That is what happens when there is no representation by a shareholder group. Nobody to say wait a minute we are the only ones losing ground.
If you agree that management isn't absolved of their fiduciary duty then I'm sure a judge will as well. Once all the redacted stuff that Fung and the boys didn't want us to know is seen by Gowlings I would imagine it will be easy to determine if management was doing their fiduciary duty or only looking out for themselves. If the judge like most of us believes that management mislead us with over promising and under delivering while securing their own financial future at the cost of shareholder value it will be hard to say they did their fiduucuary duty.
Hate to correct you but I never suggested the Judge haven't seen the redacted parts. Either you are ignoring that part or trying to mislead us again. I highlighted the part where I said GOWLING'S not the judge.
To reiterate for you: shareholders got screwed and didn't have representation to disagree with the robbery with an illegal interest rate. None of the documents I read from management said that tenor was loaning money and Kry wanted the court to ignore the illegal interest rate. The judge ruled based on what he was given. Fung signed his name multiple times saying he was there to protect shareholders and he did the opposite.
Will the judge change his mind now that he knows shareholders are not in favour of what Fung has done and it is illegal, I don't know. All I know is that until the shareholder committee was formed we had no voice but we do now!
