Not convinced of CRYXF motives concerning shareholders. Throwing around a 49% equity interest sounds like dilution. Not so sure many would consider that as shareholder friendly.

The company keeps tossing around a 49% give-away for funding. Why? CCAA protected company for one. This is a high-risk, unknown-reward, highly-speculative, play with an unknown timeline. Once they are out of CCAA or pay off the noteholders, an ICSID award might be considered as certain but the amount is unknown, and the collection timeline will likely become an issue. "Smart" money generally looks for certainty and understands that any investment includes a time element. Because of this, the company knows that "Smart" money requires the 49% incentive - to disregard the numerous uncertainties, get greedy, and lay their money down. A few years from now, they may be the "evil" noteholders.

JC, the biggest difference for shareholders between Crystallex's proposal and the note holders proposal is Crystallex is not trying to eliminate our shares. The BOD motives may be to keep their jobs and have nothing to do with helping us shareholders but their proposal is still better than that of the note holders for existing shareholders.

Giving up 49% is the same as dilution since the only asset is the arbitration case. I don't think it is written in stone at this point while in CCAA protection that any new financing will give up 49% but if it does happen I would be happy to give away 49% if my other option was to give away 100% to the note holders and be out of the game.

The comment about new debt being the eveil note holders a few years from would only be true if the new debt holders were unsecured and wanted to be considered secured like the old note holders want. There is nothing wrong with the note holders wanting what was laid out in their agreement when they did the notes. This doesn't make them evil or greedy.

What makes them greedy is from the affidavits of both Fung and Mattoni it is clear the note holders want more than they are entitled to. If the notes were secured then we have a different story. I don't see any new debt holders giving Crystallex money that is not secured by the arbitration award. Even the bridge loan was secured by the mining equipment.

I took flack a while ago when I said I understood what and why the note holders were doing what they are doing. I still have no problem as a business person with them trying for the brass ring. That is what QVT does from what I have researched.

I do have a problem with the note holders saying they are only interested in getting paid what they signed up for. This isn't true and is backed up by their CCAA plan as sworn by Mattoni. The note holders were idiots to do a debt financing for $100 million and not secure the notes. They made a bad business deal and now they want the court to bail out their stupidity by treating the like a secured creditor.

Like I said before, I don't agree with what they are doing but I understand it. Maybe Andrea Boltz and Richard Marshall should be filing to get the arbitration award since they are also unsecured creditors the same as the note holders.

We will know on the 9th about the DIP winning bid I believe. Then we will know what percentage we had to give up if any.

JJ