Gentlemen,
I know you're not looking for a mediator, but let me just say... I think you're agreeing on the major points and disputing the minor points.
The major points... shareholders deserve justice. The EC committee is working for a just result.
I think you agree on these points.
The other things are somewhat minor in my mind. I do understand we don't want to incur huge legal fees, but that is irrelevant if we don't get a just result.
I happen to trust the EC committee to watch out for shareholder interests. They're the first to be doing this in years!! I also suspect they're savvy enough to negotiate a fair deal with the law firm, given what they have to work with. They may have had to offer more than some would like, but I'm sure the law firm played up the risk they're taking too. I'm sure they can argue that their resources/assets could be deployed to more profitable business, so there is an opportunity loss to them if this does not pan out.
But, my main point, you two agree on more than you disagree. I think you're letting semantics and a disagreement in one area cloud that fact.
My motivation... I want everyone's energy focused on going after shareholder return and then going after McGann, Liscouski, Turmelle, and Duschenes.
Shareholders need to unite against the absolute crooks who put us in this horrible position.
