Paau, your post is so off base.

plezen it is the court who decides who gets what. Management do not have a conflict of interest as their only obligation under CCAA is to see creditors paid off.

It's the court that approves or doesn't what happens in CCAA but it is management that sculpts the plan. They have not made a plan for creditors which you say is their only obligation. If that was done, creditors would have been already paid off and we wouldn't be in CCAA. As we have seen, management sculpted a plan for themselves and tenor designed to pay the creditors back only after they have taken all the award from shareholders at a rate of interest just under 60% so they don't break the law. 

There were no concessions made. An open tender took place for DIP financing, Tenor's bid was accepted by the courts with clear reasons, which included protecting some of the asset for shareholders.

The tender by Tenor was approved by the court with the support of Fung and management. It was approved based on 35% of the award going to tenor for an amount far in access of what Gold Reserve and Rusoro spent in abritration. It was a bait and switch as was suggested in one of the letters or articles. It appears it was always the intent to take all the award based on how the DIP was written and money spent. Shareholders were duped not only by management and tenor by it appears Tony Reyes as well. He was portrayed as being there for shareholders when in fact it is now clear he is an investor with tenor. Makes sense that he would oppose a shareholder committee. If that isn't a conflict I don't know what one is I guess.

Once management who were appointed by shareholders took Crystallex into CCAA shareholders lost all rights and influence. If any crime was committed it took place in or before Dec 2012 prior to CCAA.

If any crime took place it is still continuing today or the fruits of the crime are happening in real time. It appears to me that this well orchestraded plan and the end results don't pass any smell test. If Management is protected in CCAA perhaps the US courts have a remedy that the AD HOC Committee and opt ins can explore. I know we have to support the people who wrote the two letters and thank them for shedding some light on what has happened. I'm betting there will be a time in the not so distant future when everyone will get a say.

JJ