I don't presume to know that, I wasn't in their board room. All I know is a man in Fung's position can't afford to react to rumours and innuendo, it has to be fact based.

Glad to see you have finally realized where Fung went wrong in Don's post. We can all agree that a company and CEO should be basing their decision on facts but should they ignore rumours and innuendo without investigating them.

Did Fung ignore the rumours and innuendos that Crystallex would never get to mine LC without trying to determine their validity? Was Fung being duped by his VZ employees who also wanted the gravy train to continue?

I think it was April of 2008 when Fung went to VZ and allegelly found/read the communication denying our permit. You can make the arguement that prior to the permit denial Fung could ignore rumours and innuends. Once the permit was denied only a irresponsible CEO would ignore the very rumours and innuendos that became true.

Between 2008 and filling for arbitration in Feb. 2011 and CCAA protection in Dec. 2011 Fung raised funds in 2010. I believe what Don, JC and others are pointing out is that after getting the letter in from MinAmb in Aug. of 2008 saying our plan was fine and it still not leading to the permit after following the proper appeal process Fung should have filed for arbitration.

Nobody has suggested that Crystallex should have filed without being complient with our contract. What is being suggested is that Fung should have taken the funds from the last private placement and used it for arbitration so that when we ended up filing for CCAA protection we would have needed to hand over three quarters of the company to continue arbitration.

I will say I disagree with JC about the noteholders. The noteholders actions caused an excelerationof our demise. The constant court battles didn't help and the FACT that Fung arranged for $120 million PP that was stopped by the noteholders prior to filing for CCAA protection.