Here's a quote from the deposition of Justin Fine in 2016:

"And you also reference the fact that the percentage has gone from a 100 percent to 12 percent, correct? MR. KLUGE: I can help on this as well. We've spoken to Ms. Konyukhova for the monitor. It's clear that the monitor doesn't believe these numbers are correct. So these were estimates. But we don't put any stock in any number other than what the monitor ultimately determines is the actual percentage that remains. So based on the review, this is what we thought it was. It's wrong. We agree that it's a substantial percentage. We don't put any great stock in the 88 percent or 12 percent number." (my emphasis)

When all this ridiculous redacting of %s started they forgot to redact the change in MIP (lawyers can be very sloppy). The MIP had become 2.9395% of the NAP (which is 25% of 11.758%) which seems to confirm the 88/12 split.

I had always read the "It's wrong. ... substantial percentage" comments of Mr. Kluge (a lawyer from Gowling) to mean we would get more. I suspect he was being sloppy but it would be nice to know for sure.

Has any opt-in asked Gowling to clarify this?