As you know there is no "opt out" process. Shareholders who do not opt in may simply be unaware of the opt in process. Do you think it would be fair to exclude those shareholders?

Paau, very interesting comment about opting in.

For someone who defends Tenor this seems like a contradiction. You are correct the process is Opt In. It is only Opt In because Tenor, Fung, and the rest of the parties chose to fight Gowlings request that all shareholders be included. This has forced a much longer process. I'm sure no shareholder that would like to opt in but as you say doesn't know about it will be happy to hear that Fung and Tenor once again put their interests ahead of shareholders. 

I believe Gowling and the committee want every shareholder to opt in. They want every shareholder to benefit from what the committee is trying to do. To the best of my knowledge there is no deadline for opting in meaning as more people find out more can opt in. For those who know about it and chose not to opt in at least they are making a decision. From my understanding of the rules and privacy laws (remember I'm not a lawyer) Gowling and the committee have no access to the list of shareholders so they can let everyone know. That would have been accomplished with an opt out process.

There is a very easy method of having all shareholders know about Gowling and the committee. Kry and Tenor could send out the information the same way they do for an AGM. Then everyone would know and be able to make an informed decision like you have. Why doesn't Tenor want everyone to know???

I know you have taken the position we shouldn't opt in. Using that devious mind you think I have I ask myself why. There are many reasons why Tenor doesn't want us to opt in. IMO, Tenor wants to present itself in court as our saviour and only a handful of shareholders are unhappy with them.

Like all movements, it is easier to dismiss the protest of 1 person over the protest of hundreds. Whether we like it or not this is the way the system works. 

JJ