JC you are a smart guy.
If you go to page 3 point 6 letter d in the first document posted at Gowlings dated October 30th, 2015 you will see that the committee wanted to represent all shareholders except those who are already represented and those whareholders who wish to opt out.
Check the second document at Gowlings. Page 2 number 4 also says opt out.
Now check the fourth document, page 3 point 6. The wording again talks about representing all shareholders except those who are already represented and those who opt out.
Jump to document 8 Feb. 17, 2016. This is the first place you will find the term opt in I believe. Why the change? I would imagine that the change was made to statisfy somebody. Could it have been the judge or the other attorneys? I don't know the answer.
This whole debate revolves around me trying to explain to Shareholders who are on this board why they may miss out or not get notification how to opt in.
I posted:
Gowlings tried to get an opt out which would have meant everyone was represented but Tenon, Fung and the rest who are at the trough fought to prevent it hoping as few as possible would join an Opt In action. Much easier to try and show only a few shareholder are unhappy.
Your orginal question that started our back and forth was:
Was there a court order requiring opt-in? Since the opt-in motion was denied, can't the Moving Parties proceed any way they choose and represent all shareholders so all can benefit?
I believe I suggested you were incorrect. It was the opt out motion that was denied and fought against so adamently by those feeding at the trough. The material at Gowlings shows this. It appears it was always the committees intent to try and represent all shareholders who didn't already have representation.
In the end the judge didn't give a court order approving a court sanctioned committee for opting in or opting out. He was very specific in his response that:
There would be nothing stopping the applicants from forming an ad hoc committee without court order and approving their own by-laws and from notifying all shareholders of the formation of the committee and determining whether the shareholders wish the committee to represent them and be bound by the committee’s actions taken on their behalf. The order sought does no more than sanction that process.
His words seem clear to me. He is talking about opting in with the ad hoc committee. I would imagine it will be more costly and difficult to do an opt in rather than an opt out but that is what Fung and the boys want.
I don't know the legality of it but it certainly doesn't seem fair to me that people who don't opt in get any monetary gains that Gowlings is able to get.
I would suggest you contact Gowlings to get your answers but I don't see them offering up much to non shareholders. It seems logical that only actual shareholders will get a copy of the retainer agreement.
JJ
