Paau could you point us to the message where you were asked whether we should be opting in? I would like to read it.

You also contradict yourself from an earlier post: http://agoracom.com/ir/Crystallex/forums/discussion/topics/687789-a-thought/messages/2143509#message

Here you tell Optiongal " However, the most likely scenario, if it was clear Tenor could lose, would be for Tenor to offer a settlement agreed with Gowling prior to judgment."

Your saying that Tenor would try to settle if they thought they would lose. Since Gowlings and the committee can only represent opt in shareholders this would leave those who took your advise in the cold. It would also save Tenor MILLIONS! That alone is a good enough reason to opt in.

I don't know the numbers but lets say there are 100,000,000 shares with the opt ins. Tenor realises they are gpoing to lose say $600,000,000 million because of what they did. That would be around $1.25 a share more for shareholders. Under your scenario Tenor could come in and offer the opt ins $3.00 a share and save $300,000,000 million.

Seems like a very good reason to have people work to limit opt ins! Your comment that you don't think people should opt in or not opt in instead they should seek legal advise. Really interesting. What is your path since you think there is a better option?

By the way there is a link to gowlings at the home page.

JJ