Jimmi you do like to argue about inconsequential things.

It is a fact that (at the time of the sworn statement) 132 out of 350 shareholders who expressed an interest had not opted in. This is fact (assuming Fine didn't commit perjury) not speculation or spin. Not only I have I not spun this, I posed it only as a half joking question to point out I am not alone. You should only care that the number (of shares) opted in is sufficently high for Gowling to take this on and nearly 30% should be ok.

It is only you (and Don) who have spun this to say they didn't opt in because they are waiting to be verified. That's a possibility but it is also possible they will never opt in. In the scheme of things it is irrelevant (a more relevant number is over 70% of equity not opting in). But that won't stop you (and others) spinning this as well. Take some friendly advice - don't make claims that you cannot prove (e.g. claiming Crystallex has "blocked" the ad hoc committee).

I too noticed the $3-4 million number. It was left hanging without any real explanation. It would be great if you could get Fine to explain it. If you get an answer you don't have to share it with me - I'm sure Gowling could privately let all the opt ins know what it means. It makes no sense interpreting it the way you appear to but if you are right it is the sort of information that should make a lot of shareholders happy to hear. Try to get facts not speculation.

I've no idea what Fine, Oppenheimer, Reyes and Kay discussed. The fact that Fine makes it sound material is interesting but perhaps you can explain why he views the conversation as "priveleged"? I think this conversation was mentioned in his deposition but I can't be bothered to re-read it.

It does sound like a lot of "behind closed doors" discussion went on with a select few shareholders. Anyone involved in those must be treated with suspicion, even ad hoc committee members, as it is very unlikely they were thinking about you when they had these conversations.