Robert, the answers are as follows:

1. I do not believe anyone has seen the tenor agreement. Perhaps those people who have signed NDA's have but I don't know anybody who has.

3. I can't be sure of anything but from what Crystallex has told us, Tenor and the court, VZ has always paid other awards after exhausting all their avenues not to. With our ISCID judgement they have no other legal recourse but to pay.

2. I have cut and pasted from the Gowlings website under the heading: Reply factum of the Proposed Committee of Shareholders, dated 8 April 2016 the bold is actually from the site and my comments are not in bold. The underlined part is what you want.

RESPONSE TO THE FACTUM OF THE COMPANY

11. At paragraph 3 the Company complains that “the Committee does not purport to represent a class or defined group of stakeholders, merely those who choose to be represented by it.” As this Court is well aware, this concession was made by the proposed committee in response to the complaint of the Company that the committee ought not to be constituted on an “opt-out” basis.

As I tried to tell AR and other here on the board, the committee wanted all shareholders to be represented. Crystallex is the one who didn't want a opt out committee and put forward an opt in suggestion. When the committee agreed as a comprimise Crystallex changed its mind and even fought that.

12. It is telling that the Company now opposes the very structure put forward in its original factum as an acceptable alternative to the “opt-in” structure then sought by the committee: As an alternative, the Committee could implement an opt-in approach, which would provide Crystallex with the desired certainty about which Shareholders received notice of the Committee or otherwise became aware of its existence and made an informed decision before agreeing to be represented by the Committee.5

13. At paragraphs 16 and 19 the Company argues that granting the Order would “lead to increased costs, inefficiencies and unfairness to creditors”, and warns of “risks” to the Company and its creditors. There is absolutely no evidence, nor can an inference be drawn, that the interests of any stakeholders other than the DIP Lender and the shareholders might be affected by the activities of the proposed committee. To reiterate, all Company creditors will be paid their full legal entitlements should the arbitration award be collected.

14. The TBS Acquireco decision the Company relies upon at paragraph 20 is distinguishable from the present circumstances. In that case:

(a) The employees of the company were seeking representative counsel whose fees would be paid out of the estate;

(b) There were no funds available to pay the pre-filing claims of the employees; and

(c) Any amounts to which the employees were entitled were already fixed in law. The amount of the arbitration award to which shareholders may be entitled in this case may not be.

15. At paragraph 22 the Company argues that “there are already numerous represented parties with a vested interest in maximizing the recovery to stakeholders (including shareholders)”. The only stakeholders whose interests have been diluted through the CCAA process are the shareholders. Whichever stakeholder(s) have been seeking to maximize shareholder recovery to date have failed.

Here the company is saying shareholders already have their interests represented and Gowlings say shareholders are the only stakeholder who keeps being diluted. Were sitting around 12% and if the stakeholders looking out for shareholders continue to do such a great job we will have 0%.

16. At paragraphs 22-25 the Company argues that the refusal of the committee to speculate as to what it will do in the future is fatal to the motion. As stated on crossexamination, the present intentions of the committee members are irrelevant to what instructions may be given at some future time following disclosure of currently unknown information and the advice of counsel with respect to that information.6

Hard to determine how badly we got screwed by tenor and management with all the documents redacted. How do you determine if they did their fiduciary duty when all the information is sealed or redacted.

17. At paragraph 28 the Company argues that “it is clear the real purpose of the Committee is to create mischief and seek to appeal or vary previous orders of this Court with the objective of increasing the percentage of net arbitration proceeds ultimately available to shareholders”. This is a fundamental mischaracterisation of the potential actions of the committee, which may include seeking:

(a) To vary the DIP orders to ensure that the terms of the DIP agreement do not entitle the DIP Lender to a criminal rate of interest in breach of section 347 of the Criminal Code, in accordance with the reasons of this Court in Re Essar Steel Algoma Inc.; 7

(b) A determination as to whether clause 6 of the Net Arbitration Proceeds Transfer Agreement Order8 renders any otherwise unlawful terms of the DIP agreement legally permissible and unactionable; and

(c) A determination as to whether the failure to provide the shareholders an opportunity to participate in the fourth DIP financing arrangement, as contemplated by paragraph 43 of the Eleventh Report of the Monitor,9 was unduly unfair and oppressive to the shareholders, such that the terms of the fourth DIP should be revisited.

18. The proposed committee has, appropriately, declined to foreclose or specifically address any potential rights or remedies that may be open to it until such time as:

(a) It has been established;

(b) Currently sealed information relevant to its decision-making has been disclosed to its members and to its counsel; and

(c) It has received the advice of its counsel.

I hope this helps Robert.

JJ