Do I think Gowling would answer a question from an opt-in shareholder? Yes, but they might refer you to the opt-in committee. They can't answer questions covered by the CA but they should be able to clarify what one of their lawyers said. What I would ask is for clarification of "It's wrong. We agree that it's a substantial percentage."

What is he saying is wrong? Is he saying the 88/12 split is wrong only because it is an approximation (a more precise split might be 88.242% / 11.758% or is there something more fundamentally wrong that alters this split by 1% or more e.g. a waterfall agreement that reduces Tenor's overall percentage? Gowling can clarify that (perhaps not the precise split, although it seems common knowledge now) without breaking any CA. In fact I would have thought this is material information BEFORE signing the opt in agreement as if you don't know what the start position is how do you know how much you will have to pay Gowling? I guess you can trust them, they are lawyers so would never cheat you.