Prezone,

“Is it the judge’s responsibility to recognize this or do we need to get "true and effective legal representation" going forward now that the shareholders committee only acts in their own best interests?”

Short answer: No.

As we now know…

·         The Canadian Bankruptcy laws assumes that shareholders are to be wiped out a priori. As a result, shareholders are not recognized as “claimants”, unless there is a residual value after paying all the company’s debts (both secure and unsecured),

·         The only reason shareholders were “given” a 35% share of the NAP was that not doing so was legally offensive, given the $3 billion ICSID claim and the less than $200 million total debt at filing time.

I have been told by two different sources that the spurious 35% NAP share was part of a master plan captured in a term sheet that was agreed between the parties before the kabuki dance now known as the DIP loan auction process. I cannot vouch for the correctness of these assertions, but after all that has happened here, I would not miss one heart bit if someone comes out with proof one of these days.

By the way, has anyone heard anything about D. Kay? Besides being replaced at KRY, he was also replaced as Board of Directors member at Eco Oro Minerals and Gabriel Resources (Tenor is financing their ICSID proceedings). 

Regarding the shareholders’ committee, I do not think that the CCAA Court and/or KRY can legally recognize and assign any rights to the nine shareholders that compose it and ignore the rest of us. This is either a win-win or a lose-lose situation for the shareholders as a group. However, the size and commonality of a "class" is hugely important when pleading before a court. So, the more petioners before the court, the more relevant the "class" is. That was the objective of the opt-in representation by Gowling.