If you had to pin the failure of Crystallex on one person, my first choice is Fung. He led the company when very poor decisions were made that put us behind GRZ in the pecking order to get paid. He took the company into CCAA. He alienated the noteholders causing a lot of extra costs and delays. Sure there are mitigating circumstances with signals he was getting from VZ and with the things a madman like Chavez was saying that very few thought could be true (hopefully we have learned that lesson when we hear what Trump says - but I doubt it). Fung is where the buck stops except we (shareholders) appointed him.

The court had nothing to do with this (and wants nothing to do with business decisions). The court is required to sort out the mess with basically one aim - to make debtors whole. This is what the court has done and is doing. Justice Newbould, if VZ ever pay up, will have done a phenomenally successful job. The court through the monitor and other independent experts was told how best to achieve this.

There is zero chance that distressed financing (DIP loans) will be subject to criminal code 347. It would be impossible for most companies to come out of CCAA without distressed financing. There is zero chance that the court will interfere in a CCAA judge's decisions regarding business aspects (i.e. distressed financing) when debtors are made whole including lost interest.

This feels bad - seeing Fung get $50m, seeing Tenor make $850m profit (imagine how the noteholders feel about that) - and some may not even get a tenth of their investment back. It is not fair (moral justice?), but almost certainly it is legal (justice).

As an aside you should note that the Canadian legal system (and criminal code 347 in particular) generally has no problem with "willfully exploitative and unethical business practices" - just look at payday loans (targetted at the poor) with interest rates around 600%.