25 It may be true, as the trial Judge said, that, because it was insolvent, the appellant's interest in maximising its return was pursued for the benefit of its creditors and that it was "seeking to vacate its status as a member as part of a liquidation process" (at [26] of his reasons). However, I am, with due respect, unable to accept that any of this gave the appellant an interest in the resolution or its subject matter other than as a member. The desire to maximise a unit holder's return on the sale of its units seems to me necessarily to be an advantage or benefit, and hence an "interest", that arises as a member regardless of whether the sale is for the benefit of its creditors in the case of an insolvent company or, in the case of a solvent company, for the benefit of its shareholders or, indeed, for the purpose of satisfying a particular debt or debts. While counsel for the respondent suggested that a desire to maximise the return to creditors in the course of the winding up of the appellant is a "concern" arising other than in its capacity as a member, and that the word "interest" is wide enough to encompass a "concern" (he relies, in this respect, upon the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition), it seems to me that a concern of this kind could not be categorised as an "interest" and that the appellant's purpose or motive in seeking to facilitate the sale of its units at the best price is irrelevant. Its only interest in the resolution or matter was that of achieving the best price for its units. Whatever may have been its motive for doing that, this is an advantage or benefit that is capable of arising only in its capacity as a member. There is no suggestion that the appellant had any other interest in the resolution or matter. Nor is there any suggestion that the resolution worked any inequality as between unit holders.