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..

Since you haven't bothered to do your own DD as shown by not knowing how many shares the 9 members have I will answer with what I know. I won't even charge you for my time spent reading the documents.

You obviously haven't seen the agreement yet or you would know the fees are based on a percentage of what Gowlings claws back. This is why the deal is so good. You are risking none of the value your shares currently have.

Gowlings MAY get more revenue with more people opting in but that is only true if all shareholders get the benefit regardless if they opt in or not. If however the benefit goes to those shareholders who fought against Tenor and Fung it wouldn't make any difference to Gowlings. I'm going to give you a math example to try an explain it better. This is based on the shareholders who opted in getting the benefit.

Lets say Gowlings is able to get an extra 100 million. Lets say the fee is 5% of what they get for us. How much does Gowlings get if there is 1 person who opted in? The answer is 5 million. Now how much would Gowlings get if 100 people opted in? The answer is still 5 million. The fee is based on how much they are able to get back for the shareholders they represent.

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

This question has already been answer multiple times but here goes. The 9 shareholders who hired Gowlings are the people they represent. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand unless your point is that you want to try and confuse members. Gowlings will take instructions only from the committee since that is who hired them.

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

To the best of my knowledge a lawyer can't represent anyone who doesn't want to be represented by them so it is quite possible that only the 9 committee members and shareholders that opt in will reap the benefits. Will there be any free rides? I don't know but the people to ask would be Gowlings.

It sounds like you are advocating that shareholders should opt in. They might recoup the same benefit as the people who opt in but not have to pay a percentage fee. That is a very risky suggestion for shareholders or even yourself.

One of the reasons it is evident the 9 person committee is doing this for all shareholders is they are asking everyone to opt in. If the extra money only goes to those who opt in the committee could make a lot more without sharing the bonus money. The committee wanted everyone in with the option to opt out.

Here is the information: I have highlighted the information that answers your question about what you don't see. It is clearly stated for everyone to see.

The Committee wishes shareholders to take note of important information which may be relevant to their decision as to whether to seek to become an Opt In represented by the Committee:

1. While it is possible that a shareholder who is NOT an Opt In may derive benefit from the efforts of the Committee and GWLG, neither the Committee nor GWLG represent such shareholders and they owe no duties to such shareholders.
   
   Specifically, the Committee need only consider the interests of the Opt Ins. For example, in representing the Opt Ins the Committee must consider and may choose to accept any settlement offer proposed to the Committee where such an offer includes benefits only for the Opt Ins, excluding other shareholders.


2. Gowling takes instructions from the Committee only. In the normal course, Opt Ins may contact the Committee to raise issues and concerns and the Committee will consult with Gowlings as the Committee deems appropriate.


3. Opt Ins are prohibited from acting in any manner that impairs or otherwise interferes with the Committee executing its mandate. If the Committee deems an Opt In to be acting in such a manner, the Committee may cause that Opt In to cease to be represented.

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?

This has been answered many times so I have to assume you are being redundant for a reason. Not sure what it is but here goes for the last time. Gowlings get paid a percentage of anything extra shareholders get over what they already have!

I can't think of a fairer way to do it. We risk no capitol we have left in the company, Gowlings pays all the costs and Gowlings only get paid a percentage if they are successful. Kind make Tenor getting hundreds of millions seem criminal.

JJ