Paau you have said the court will treat all shareholders the same yet you put forward in an earlier post a list of what will happen when Tenor realises they will lose the case and tell us they will offer opt ins a deal. You neglect to say all shareholders will get a deal. Which is it?

Paau if you have a list of all shareholders or can obtain one I will make sure Gowling and the committee get a copy so they can notify everyone. Can you supply a list of shareholders or are you doing another slight of hand? I don't believe for one minute it is a money issue. To get the list from Fung and Tenor to contact everyone they would have to cooperate which they certainly didn't do by opposing an opt out process.

From my experience with the different companies I'm a shareholder in they do not give people a list of who is a shareholder unless it is over I believe 5% of the shares. I simply don't believe you are being honest. If you are take the step and send me the list.

When you say" It would help if we knew what Gowling's case is. If it is only criminal code 347 then it doesn't matter whether they represent one shareholder or one million." are you now admitting you are part of Tenor when you say we. It can't be as a opt in shareholder since you have said you are not opting in. Why do you say it doesn't matter how many shareholders are being represented. I doubt one shareholder could afford to fight Tenor and their team of lawyers. It can only be done by us banding together to fight for what is fair and just.

I'm not sure what unredacted documents you are refering to when you say " I'm amazed that this information hasn't been leaked - it's been over 2 years and plenty of people must have seen the unredacted reports.. There are no documents that I have seen on the monitors website that are unredacted. You may have a NDA and leak information but without telling us we have no way of knowing what is under NDA rules and what isn't.

Here is a real simple question that only needs a yes or no. Do you have a NDA?

JJ