Negotiations for the Plan are implied to be mandated. Apparently the lawyers will still be involved. The fees seem to be never ending.

This is true but what the Judge recognized was that both sides are wasting time on motions which are costly and don't help getting the end result needed of an agreement. In fact the Judge said that the Noteholders motion was retalitory. By needing the judges approval before bringing any further motions it will stop the extra legal fees being wasted in an effort to run Kry out of money.

Also, some reason for concern by Newbould about Crystallex funding being available through May mentioned. Hope there isn't another surprise.

I certainly didn't read any concern from Newbould about funding until the end of May. This is what was in the endorsement from the judge:

[21] The stay of proceedings was last ordered in December to be extended on consent to January 31, 2013, The motion that day had requested an extension to May 17, 2013 and the cash flow prepared by Crystallex and contained in the Monitor's report indicated sufficient cash to carry on to at least May 31, 2013. An updated cash flow has been prepared for the period up to May 31, 2013 which Crystallex and the Monitor believe remains appropriate.

This is simply stating that the original extension that Kry asked for in December which was to May 17th and has now been granted came with a cash flow that has been updated by Kry and the monitor and been found to be acceptable.

Any concern about cash flow revolves around the extra litigation by all parties but mainly the noteholders. This is once again their goal of trying to increase the burn rate so we need more money. It is becoming clear that Kry will need more money because of the noteholder legal action and their refusal to pay costs ordered by the court for past losses.

I want to remind everyone that if the noteholders had been dealing in good faith then they easily could have arranged for their current debt to be extended like it is now in CCAA protection at an increased interest rate, arranged for the extra $35 million for 35% of the award like Tenor did and we would not be in CCAA protection. They chose the route of trying to get it all by eliminating shareholders forcing us into CCAA protection.

While I agree that management will make out ok no matter what happens, without them we would be done right now. This isn't an endorsement of how they managed the company or any of these dealing with VZ and the noteholders. It is simply stating the fact that before going into CCAA protection the only group that wanted everyone to get money was management.

JJ