Thanks for the answers

As I asked before what is the litagation so far?

Oct 15, 2015; Jan 11, 2016; Feb 17, 2016; Mar 14, 2016, Apr 6, 2016 and Apr 11, 2016 are what I recall off the top of my head. This doesn't include depositions, disclosure and all the preparatory communciation and work that goes on.

My question was about your comment that Gowling had failed so far. Are those court dates not about the same thing. Gowling asking the court that all shareholders be included unless they chose to opt out. This would have made sure no body fell through the cracks. Tenor and Fung wanted an opt in so it would be more costly and keep as many shareholders as possible from opting in.

This would mean that Gowling had failed for opt out but were allowed an opt in.

If the 12% has not been under threat

There is no "if". It has not been under threat - fact.

You could have said the same thing when Fung first sold us out to Tenor. Our 50% was not under threat. Then our 30% was not under threat. Then our 25% was not under threat. Then our 18% was not under threat.

You will have a hard time convincing anyone our last 12% was not under threat until Gowling and the ad hock committee stepped in.

explain your 20/1 ratio to me

For every $1 Crystallex has shareholders "own" about 5 cents net (based on what we know now).

I'll have to take your word on it which makes me uneasy. Given what you said then if Crystallex and Tenor spend $1 million on legal fees to fight Gowling it costs shareholders $50,000. $10 million would cost $500,000 to shareholders. With 365 million outstanding shares we are taking about a fraction of a cent per share. So if the end bill is $10 million to Crystallex and tenor it would cost shareholders $.00137 per share since we would only be getting 5 cents on the dollar according to you.

It seems like the biggest loser to a legal fight with Gowling and the ad hock committee who represents opt ins is TENOR and CRYSTALLEX. I hadn't thought about it this way before. It now makes sense why Tenor is so scared of Gowling and the growing opt ins.

you would be getting more because we had to pay Gowling to fight for more and you decided to suckle away at our expense

Yes, exactly correct although I might use words less bitter.

My words were not meant to be bitter. They were intended to give a visual image of the type of behavior you are exhibiting. I could have used leech, parasite, moocher, free loader or how about opportunistic.

Pick whatever word you like Paau.