I must be missing something.
What does that mean "why crystallex can't publicly state commons are covered. Read the risk assessments regarding recouping money through arb and you will see why. They'd be foolish to."
Covered for what?
Are some people looking for a press release saying Crystallex will guarantee existing share holders will recieve X amount of money? I don't know how anyone could believe they will come out and say that since they have no idea.
Are some people looking for a press release saying Crystallex will be filing to have their existing company shares listed for trading after they come out of CCAA protection? I don't see why they would do that unless they are 100% sure that is what they plan to do.
Are some people looking for a press release saying Crystallex will pay off all debts with any money they recieve from a settlement or an award and then divide the remaining money between shareholders through a cash payout? I don't see why they would do that unless they are 100% sure that is what they plan to do.
I have not called the SEC or the monitor to ask what Crystallex plans to do after arbitration if an award is collected because I don't think they will be able to answer that question. The only ones able to answer that would be Crystallex management. I have called Crystallex and asked that question and was told they have a couple options and will pursue the best option for everyone when the time comes. One of the options outlined to me was paying out the balance of the award after all debt has been repaid to the existing shareholders. This would include disolving the company.
Another option was to get listed again for trading. They did not say they would make the old shares worthless and be issuing new shares to be listed for trading. Every question I have asked about shares has always been answered that they are trying to make everyone whole again.
For anyone wanting Crystallex to make a public statement they have already. I believe Crystallex has put forth publically through court documents their postion about existing shareholders.
Fung's original affidavit from Dec. 22 2011 is fully of statements that make it clear managements position regarding existing shareholders.
Page 22 - 79. Crystallex firmly believes tha CCAA is the most fair way to obtain maximum vale for all os Crystallex"s shareholders.
80. CCAA protection will ensure that the settlement or award is available for the benefit of all Crystallex stakeholders and not simply for the benefit of a few strategic players.
From the notice of application on Dec. 23 2011:
Page 6 - (h). The settlement of arbitration or the enforcement of an award will likely allow Crystallex to pay out its creditors in full and retain substantive value for the benefit of its equity holders.
If anyone wants to take the time to go back and re all the documents again you will find the only mention of eliminating existing shareholder value is by the noteholders. Read the second document from Judge Newbould giving his reasons for the initial order and it will be pretty clear that he is looking out for existing shareholders. It is found under court orders/CCAA dated December 28 2011.
http://www.ey.com/ca/crystallex
Making a press release explaining they plan to COVER existing shareholders would be redundunt since it has already been said in court. Should they spend the money each time some one asks the same question?
As a shareholder I don't like what has happened or how information has been transfered to shareholders. I don't see a better option however. Until someone shows where Fung or Crystallex says they plan to eliminate existing shareholders I will stick with the court documents.
