Welcome to the Crystallex HUB on AGORACOM

Crystallex International Corporation is a Canadian-based gold company with a successful record of developing and operating gold mines in Venezuela and elsewhere in South America

Free
Message: Re: appeals court comments
7
Nov 05, 2012 05:07PM
4
Nov 05, 2012 05:18PM
5
Nov 05, 2012 05:59PM
4
Nov 06, 2012 11:57AM

Actually, kry can have the intent to avoid giving the noteholders anything, that is, anything other than what they are already owed. As I said previously "I don't see why kry is under an compulsion to the noteholders to do anything other than agree to repay their notes plus interest. Tenor got a special deal because it was willing to come forward and give kry the working capital it needed to complete the arbitration. The notheolders, on the other hand, have not given anything additional. Rather, they are merely owed what they agreed in the past to 'invest' in kry via unsecured notes."

As I understand it, this is exactly what the both kry and the judge said: "Crystallex argues that the Noteholders are not contractually entitled to convert their Notes to equity, and should therefore not be entitled to do so. Moreover, they argue, in the event of bankruptcy, the Noteholders would only be entitled to recover their principal and interest at the statutory rate of 5 per cent .... The Noteholders are sophisticated parties. They pursued a strategy. It ultimately proved less successful than hoped."

My point again is simply that kry is under no compulsion to make any deal with the noteholders that requires them to give the notheholders any portion of the arbitration award (the equity). As I noted earlier: "Just because Tenor got a good deal does not mean that the noteholders are due anything other than what they are already due. They are contributing nothing additional and they hold no clout or club to force kry in the eyes of the judge to do anyhing other than offer to repay the outstanding notes plus interest. To me it is relatively simple. I would be very surprised if kry offered them any portion of the arbitration award or if the judge put pressure on kry to do that. They had their chance to get a piece of the pie and they lost out."

Kry wanted the judge to think that they were openminded and thus agreed to "negotiate" with the noteholders, but the judge's subsequent opinion (set forth above in part) makes it clear that he agreed they were not required to give up any equity. Hence, from this point forward I think kry is on firm ground rejecting any further proposals by the noteholders of a similar nature, even if they are out of hand.

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply