I'm reluctant to respond to this line of reasoning as I put it under shareholders' right to whine, complain and make up conspiracy theories. If that is all this is then just ignore my comments.

What still appears not clear to shareholders here is that under CCAA shareholders have no rights unless at the time of the CCAA there is provable value above and beyond creditor claims.

With Crystallex, whilst for there to be any value the award would have to be won, paid and be sizable, it was never certain that this would happen. Management and the court's only concern is giving the company the best opportunity to repay creditors. There can be no conflict of interest as there is only ONE interest i.e. that of the creditors.

However, Justice Newbould recognised that for this to be successful, there should be value for shareholders and therefore he chose to accept DIP financing from Tenor rather than a plan of arrangement that would have certainly eliminated any shareholder value. When he did this most here applauded and accepted the 35% that Tenor would get, there were a few moans and groans about the MIP, but for the most part (with notable exceptions) everyone here looked upon Tenor as a "white knight". As ICSID dragged on and Tenor risked more and more money, they also required more and more of the pie. But at no time during the many DIP rounds was the court able to know with certainty that creditors would be paid off in full and therefore at no time could there be a conflict of interest.

As to those who voiced concern about Tenor at the time, as with most here who go against the grain they were banned or attacked personally, despite being 100% right. Those who did the attacking were 100% wrong (and continue to be).

You know that saying that starts "fool me once"? By my count it is up to 10 or 11 times now.