Re: Not opting in
in response to
by
posted on
Feb 27, 2017 07:08PM
Crystallex International Corporation is a Canadian-based gold company with a successful record of developing and operating gold mines in Venezuela and elsewhere in South America
Paau, a couple things stick to me in your reply to Don.
I see no reasonable chance of improving the waterfall agreement in court. This is based on both my personal knowledge and experience of the law and colleagues who have considerable experience both in CCAA and the criminal code. The situation we have right now is that the waterfall provision was presented to the court, many parties had input yet it was agreed by the court.
You mentioned previously that you have a relationship with Crystallex attorney Jay Swartz but he is not advising you on this matter. You also mentioned what a good lawyer he was and how he won you money in a different case. Why wouldn't you give Swartz a call to ask about this possible litagation?
If I knew someone with intimate knowledge of the case they would be the first person I would ask. I'm sure he couldn't supply you with any inside information but I would imagine he would be able to tell you how he felt about their chances. Are you sure your opinion isn't being shaped by any discussions with Crystallex or Tenor lawyers? That in my opinion would give a lot more weight to your position. At least then you would be saying that neither Crystallex or Tenor have any concerns about Gowling and shareholders.
That doesn't mean they are correct however. That would be for the court to decide. I understand better than when you say we you may be refering to more than all of us as shareholders. The we also includes Tenor and Crystallex.
I will pass on point two as we differ on whether litagation is unnecessay but will say that you are a man of your convictions. Taking a stand not to opt in so you don't influence unnecessary litagation is very altruistic of you.
Point three: The opt in committee's contingency arrangement is in my opinion a very poor approach to protecting our current interest in the award (if Fung / Tenor were to try to change it further).
What do you think is a better way for protecting what we have? I'm not asking your advice on what to do since you have made it clear you don't want to persuade anyone. I'm asking what option are you seeing that I/we don't. I can make up my own mind about your opinion of a better way but not until you tell me what it is I should be considering.
JJ