jimmijazz: We've discussed this before so I hesitate to repeat but the court said every shareholder will be treated the same and the opt in committee are able to notify shareholders - presumably they choose not to (perhaps because they don't want to spend more money?).

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.

But they also mentioned that shareholders were not given an opportunity to participate in the 4th DIP. Do you know why the 4th DIP is treated in this way? Why would the question of shareholder participation be relevant to the 4th DIP and not to the other 3 DIPs? 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.

Put your devious mind to that issue and you might have greater insight to what is really going on.