I find it difficult to put my mind around the concept that the company couldn't have obtained the money to complete the audit from, if no one else, the judge via an order to the DIP Lender. The DIP Lender may provide the money, but it does not run the show. Only the judge runs the show. Surely, he would not want to see the company's registration revoked. And I am of the school that the revocation of the company's SEC registration was in fact a significant event well worth preserving. As to the cost of the audit, this is a non-operational company and the cost of an audit of a non-operational company is not the same as the audit of an operational company.

Finally, the consent order of the SEC states:

"Crystallex has failed to comply with Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a -13 thereunder because it did not timely file with the Commission, its Form
20 -F for the period ended December 31, 2011. On January 31, 2013, Crystallex filed a
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2011. Cystallex filed an amended Form 20-F on February 8, 2013."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/912500/999999999713008952/filename1.pdf

Question: If the company in fact filed Form 20-F, albeit late, why did it need to consent to a revocation of its registration?