My take on the CTO:

The CTO is a defensive tactic on Crystallex's part and taken in context of the New Shareholders Right's plan, and the "Standstill agreements" in the NDA's in the Dip financing bidding process, is part of an overall defensive plan against the Noteholders.

A MCTO would have achieved the same thing and would have prevented the Noteholders from accumulating enough shares to gain a blocking vote, and thus gaining more control over the company.

Granting a MCTO is discretionary on the part of the regulatory board but a CTO is automatic in the event of non-compliance with the reporting requirements. While KRY management would have preferred a MCTO it's possible that that they were hedging with the CTO.

I refer you to Mr. Mattoni, the lawyer representing the Noteholders, he mentions these issues in his affidavit.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion only and I have a cynical and devious mind...

NZranger