Is the intent to replay the absolute disappointment and complete disgust - getting revoked as Crystallex claimed it was a, "MISTAKE?" If so, good for you. How easily prior Crystallex claims and excuses are forgotten. Redirection of shareholder anger, away from the company, is a frequent minion tactic. The company truly appreciates it.

Regardless, noting, "...spread of misinformation," actually goes quite a ways back, years even, with my questioning why Crystallex always stopped short in their claims, consistently leaving shareholders to "read into" things. Despite Crystallex claiming somewhat different, the DD showed delisting would happen. And it did. Noted same for suspension/revoke. They also happened. I have not been thrilled about the DD being accurate.

Trusting a company to verify their own claim(s) can be compared to trusting a used car salesman to verify they will absolutely provide the best deal(s).

Sure, Crystallex is not prevented from reapplying for registration under the Act. Would that be for revoked holders? Or, a completely different re-org proxy? Think about it, Crystallex stops short again (they do this a lot) leaving out specifics and details concerning what they would actually apply for. Anything is possible. But, why should shareholders have to, yet again, "read into it?"

Am still waiting on verifiable information confirming no worries holding revoked shares.

Hope it all works out for everyone.