"The 9 committee members have approximately 10% of the outstanding shares. From the sound of people waiting to hear back from Gowlings wanting to opt in, the percentage that the committee will represent could be 30 to 40 percent. Perhaps it could end up being even more."

So why do you suppose Gowling is soliciting for non-members of the committee which only decreases the money the 9 members of the committee would receive if they share what will be a fixed return. They would then share with 40% of the shareholdings instead of 10% of the shareholdings. It must have something to do with helping Gowling increase their revenue. Which is fine and deserving but still trying to figure this out which has been a thread in all my postings.

It could be that if the litigation is successful then all shareholders benefit but Gowling can only collect their fee from the 9 member committee and 10% of the shares. But if 40% opt-in then Gowling benefits from 40% of the shares..

I know Gowling says they only represent the Shareholder's committee.

There is no indication that I can see where if the litigation is successful that all other shareholders will not benefit anyways.

i am not against Gowling making as much money as they can. I support that.

Same question as before posts. Is Gowling's fee based on a percentage of the settlement they achieve or is it already a fixed number?

I support the work lawyers do on behalf of their clients. The more for us the more for them.

I love Capitalism.

MAGA