That Crystallex were suing is a fact - that they would win is not nor is how much they would win. The key issue for the court is whether the DIP loans were reasonable as of the information available at the time. According to court experts, the Monitor and the Company, the DIP loan terms were reasonable. The noteholders objected but not so much on the reasonableness, afterall didn't they want 100% of the award for the same loan? Did anyone offer better terms? Did the shareholders object at the time?

Deals where the return is greater than 60% pa of the loan happen frequently, the vast majority are not breaches of the criminal code even when it is known in advance that the return could be greater than 60%. The criminal code is not there to prevent high risk high return transactions.

Gowling are in this to make money. They are not going to risk spending their money with no chance of winning - they honestly believe there is a chance. I don't. I also know that many cases are brought (by highly reputable law firms) "with ambition" - some they win, some they lose. They are making a high risk high return gamble (which is not a breach of the criminal code).