91% vote for deal

[Kaliboo]

Kaliboo: "However, it is my understanding that even after dissenters receive that offer, they can take it OR they can rescind their dissent and accept the original deal. So if this is correct, then why NOT dissent was my conclusion." But is that a correct interpretation? "Marginal note:Suspension of rights (11) On sending a notice under subsection (7), a dissenting shareholder ceases to have any rights as a shareholder other than to be paid the fair value of their shares as determined under this section except where (a) the shareholder withdraws that notice before the corporation makes an offer under subsection (12), (b) the corporation fails to make an offer in accordance with subsection (12) and the shareholder withdraws the notice, or © the directors revoke a resolution to amend the articles under subsection 173(2) or 174(5), terminate an amalgamation agreement under subsection 183(6) or an application for continuance under subsection 188(6), or abandon a sale, lease or exchange under subsection 189(9), in which case the shareholder’s rights are reinstated as of the date the notice was sent. Marginal note:Offer to pay (12) A corporation shall, not later than seven days after the later of the day on which the action approved by the resolution is effective or the day the corporation received the notice referred to in subsection (7), send to each dissenting shareholder who has sent such notice (a) a written offer to pay for their shares in an amount considered by the directors of the corporation to be the fair value, accompanied by a statement showing how the fair value was determined; or (b) if subsection (26) applies, a notification that it is unable lawfully to pay dissenting shareholders for their shares." Per 11 (a) above the notice of dissention must be withdrawn "before the corporation makes an offer", which makes sense. The law further mentions that if a dissenting shareholder does not like the corp's offer then they can not accept or not respond to the offer, but then it goes to the court to value. But the desire to rescind dissent must come before the initial offer from the company. Again, this makes sense because there are costs to all of this and to allow a dissenting shareholder to have his cake and eat it too would defeat the purpose of the law. Fairness goes both ways and frivolous actions are a waste of a court's time, which is usually frowned upon. And the future of this right could be in jeopardy if too many shareholders did this. I've seen where what you claim has been stated by others here, but IMO that is a risky assumption. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/...ge-31.html

You may be right.  Certainly makes sense.  But I also suspect that if the new fair offer is below the current offer, that could be also frowned on by the court as well especially since news on A7 is so far poor and dissenters lock in a valuation time in mid December well before the bad news occurred which will affect recertification for those who did not dissent.  Time will tell.  Best of luck to all.