Plezen all decisions are taken by the court - not by management or Tenor. The court has denied any prospect of challenging those decisions. The legal battle, pursued frivolously by Gowling is over, they lost (many many times). The Justices caught on to what Gowling were doing very quickly and made it clear they would not tolerate this any more.

Fung and Tenor could have planned all of this back in Dec 2012, that's very plausible (but personally I think you give Fung too much credit to come up with a scheme like that). Shareholders appointed Fung so that is down to us, the court appointed Tenor with no objection from shareholders i.e. tacit approval. The only group who have a claim are the creditors and they tried multiple times and were shut down by the judge in part to help shareholders. Now creditors will get everything they are owed plus interest so even though the courts treated them badly they can have no recourse as they faced no harm.

You guys still don't get this. CCAA removes all interest by shareholders until and unless all creditors are repaid. Once that happens then any action taken after that can be challenged by shareholders, so if Tenor try to take 100% or do anything to inhibit pre-existing shareholders share (i.e. 9%) then I will be the first to sue them in court.

Feel free to whine about injustice and/or come up with murky conspiracy theories (I'm not suggesting you have done this). I doubt you will find a more lucid example of this then krychaser's letter so any other posts here may seem redundant.