Paau thought I would make one last post showing you are full of it.

Take some friendly advice - don't make claims that you cannot prove (e.g. claiming Crystallex has "blocked" the ad hoc committee).

Thanks for the advice. I read today in the new court documents the following from the sworn affidavit of Mr. Murdoch regarding Crystallex and I quote from points 3, 4 and 5 on page 2:

3. As further described below, the inability of the Committee as a whole to access the NDA Confidential information so as to discuss issues relevant to the Committee and those of the shareholders of Crystallex that they represent (the Opt-In Shareholders) on an informed basis has made performing the mandate of the Committee difficult and, in some cases, impossible.

4. Despite of the requests of the Committee the Applicant refuses to allow any other members of the Committee to execute NDAs.

5. In addition, Crystallex continues to withhold other types of information relevant to this CCAA procedding (the Undisclosed Information) even from stakeholders of the Company who have executed NDAs.

There are many more points that I hope everyone here reads. Point 10 on page 3 paints a nice picture of how Crystallex is helping shareholders.

Just my opinion Paau but it sure doesn't sound like Crystallex is playing fair. Sure doesn't sound like Crystallex is looking to give the Ad Hoc Committee the list of shareholders so they can contact everyone about opting in like you have said Gowlings could.

Shame on you Paau. You must be using lternitive facts!