Paau I was paraphrasing your opinion of Jay Swartz. Here is the actual quote from your post: "(For full disclosure I also know Jay Swartz, professionally, who represents Crystallex in this matter - he actually acted for me winning a sizeable settlement from another listed company so I know how good he is but of course I have had zero contact with him over this)."

You are correct, you didn't use the words Jay is a good lawyer. You said I know how good he is. If you could explain me the difference I would appreciate it. I wouldn't intentionally try and twist what you said for a different meaning.

I can't answer what the best way is to protect what we have because I don't know what is going to happen to take away what we have, but both the "bad" noteholders (who are major shareholders too) and Reyes have lawyers for this.

Ok if you don't want to say what the best approach is can you then just give me some other options. For you to say 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). indicates you have made a decision. I'm not trying to pin you down and blame you if your other option doesn't work. Either there is another approach or not.

I have to ask you a question you won't like because it brings into question your posts but on the flip side if I'm missing something then I will look stupid.

You said "the "bad" noteholders (who are major shareholders too)" 

I've read a lot of documents on the monitors site. Many of them are redacted for reasons unknown to me. From my understanding only the company and transfer agent would know who all the shareholders are of Crystallex. If that is true them how do you know the bad noteholders are major shareholders? Is it listed in one of the court documents? I'm not suggesting you have inside knowledge, I'm simply asking where the information came from that said the bad noteholders were major shareholders.

JJ