It depends on what kind of proof you are looking for.

Where is this information showing the current Noteholders placed obstacles in KRY's path?

Let's start with page 11 of Fungs affidavit point 41.

I have had numerous discussions with the 2004 noteholders about the possibility of restructuring the obligations under the 2004 Note Indenture. These discussions have failed because the noteholders have consistantly insisted on taking for them selves almost all of the equity interest in Crystallex, leaving the current shareholders with only a nominal, if any, interest in the company.

This is backed up by Judge Newboulds filing of reasons on page 4 point 16.

The noteholders purpose a Plan of Compromise and Reorganization to be authorized in the Initial Order, which contemplates:

(a) New common shares will be issued by Crystallex and all existing shares will be cancelled without any repaymentof capitol or other compensation.

This information in my opinion backs up fungs claim that he is trying to do what is best for all stakeholders and the noteholders have no interest in Crystallex looking after existing shareholders.

You can also look at the letters on starting on page 174 of the PDF file of Fungs affidavit. I'm not going to type it out but people can check for themselves.

1. The Noteholders tellsCrystallex they can't incur any debt senior to theirs.

This is well within their right but if they really wanted only their money back they could have agreed to secured financing as long as it included repayment of their note in the PP. It would have given the noteholders what they signed up for but wouldn't have given them the all the company.

2. Tells us that if Kry plans to file for CCAA protection and ask for DIP financing the noteholders don't think the DIP is necessary but if it is going to happen then they want to be the lender.

I'm no genius but when one party says they can't do any financing in point one and then in point two says Kry doesn't need any money from the DIP so arbitration can continue it sure seems like a road block to me with the motive of getting Kry for themselves.

More roadblocks to Fung either finding financing or a settlement are outline on page 20 point 81. fung says under oath that VZ authorities have been contacted by an unnamed stakeholder saying they someone else beside Fung and the board would soon be in a position to start discussions with VZ.

I have looked at every court document and the only party who has asked for control of Kry and/or removal of the board is the noteholders. This includes past lawsuits that they have lost.

I have no specific information or facts other than what has been filed in court under oath. I suppose some else could be contacting VZ but in my opinion if it looks like chit, smells like chit, it is probably chit.

Point 82 on page 21 says "As noted earlier in this affidavit, the lead investor on the $135 million financing proposal have preferred that the financing be subject to court approval to avoid litigation. Their concern is understandable in light of previous litigation by the Noteholders against Crystallex and their directors.

Again I suggest people go to page 177 of the PDF file and you will see in the November 23 correspondence from the noteholders, they talk about holding Crystallex and it's directors responsible.

This is well within their right but it certainly doesn't help Kry arrange financing as Fung said. I'm not saying they should help if they want the biggest payday possible but if they simply want what is owed to them they could have found a way for the PP to happen so they would get their money.

Jc, I haven't blamed the noteholders for our situation. That is between Fung and VZ. My problem is with the idea by some people that the Noteholders are only trying to get full payment as per their 2004 contract. That simply isn't true and it is proved in the court documents they want it all.

I was the first to say that I understand their position but I don't have to like it. I agree it is just business that is why I think Newbould sees exactly what the noteholders are doing. We may lose everything and while I won't be happy I will understand, just don't have the noteholders portray them selves as the good guy here because they aren't.

JJ