The Justin Fine deposition is fairly typical but doesn't give any clue as to the merits of changing the waterfall provision. I noted:

1. Justin Fine is also a noteholder (but always opposed to the "bad" noteholders)

2. The 88% for Tenor and 12% for shareholders numbers are incorrect

3. The opt-in committee envisaged having a seat at the table in negotiations with VZ over collection of the award (which is a bad idea)

4. Justin Fine spoke with Tenor, Reyes and Oppenheimer prior to the 3rd DIP

5. Not surprisingly, Tenor and Fung seem very interested in both the broadhost.com and agoracom Crystallex forums - I guess they will try to use these forums against the opt-in committee (by the way, if Fung or Tenor secretly posted to these forums they would be in serious trouble)

6. Gowling mention that Fung and Tenor's deposition of Justin Fine cost around $50,000 - we paid for that

7. The 4th DIP of upto $13.2m (of which $1.2m went straight back to Tenor) was in exchange for 1.34% / $1m of the arbitration award (which is consistent with all other DIPs). By my calculation, that's $18.6m return for $1m invested - that meets the 60% pa criminal code threshold. It will be an interesting case. Tenor get $22m of the award for their $1.2m fee.