Paau,

When one issues an opinion, one does not present it as a fact. If one does, one is misrepresenting opinion as fact. As I have told you before, I know THE FACTS and I can back every single statement I make on this board.

From your last message on this board:

1. You claim the mining data is worth $240m (at least?) and that ONLY pre-CCAA shareholders are entitled to it.

2. Any tax losses accrued pre-CCAA can only benefit pre-CCAA shareholders.

I contend both claims are nonsense. I contend that whatever assets and liabilities the company has when the award is finally paid (if it is paid) will lead to a NAP distributed according to the court approved waterfall agreement.

Regarding the mining data:

From the KRY-TENOR Credit Agreement...

LENDER ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION PROVISIONS

As additional compensation for the Loan, the Borrower shall pay to the Lender and the Lender shall be entitled to receive an amount, subject to reduction of such amount specifically in accordance with subsection (f) below, equal to 35% [now 88%] of the Net Arbitration Proceeds.

THE FACTS:

Per the Credit Agreement, which falls squarely under contract law and, therefore, its STATED TERMS (not subject to subjective interpretations) are the only legal basis for the required execution by the contracting parties...

1.- Tenor is only entitled to a share in the PROCEEDS FROM THE ARBITRATION against Venezuela. This, in turn, is predicated upon the ICSID AWARD, which defined and later made a decision on the claim in dispute and its monetary value (since the ICSID could not require Venezuela to return the mine).

2.- The Mining data and the Tax Loss Benefit not only preceded the ICSID award, but also were not part of the ICSID claim, simple because there was no contention by anyone that they needed to be part of the arbitration process and decision. In other words, Venezuela did not claim the mining data was its property because a) KRY had paid $16 million for the mining data the CVG had at the time of the MOC and b) KRY has spent years and million of USD to complete the data needed to develop the mine and c) KRY had taken the data to Canada and it was in its possesion when the expropriation took place. 

 Regarding the tax loss benefits:

THE FACTS:

Back in June 2008, Jay Swartz from Davies, the KRY Bankruptcy counsel, tried to argue that the tax benefit had to be shared with Tenor based on the CCAA Court orders. Swartz's argument did not get very far, since the Court orders did not and could not deal with such matters because a) they were never part of the CCAA proceedings and b) Both the CCAA Court and the ONCA had established that…

“At present, Crystallex’s only asset of significance is an arbitration claim for US $3.4 billion against the government of Venezuela in relation to the cancellation of the contract. The arbitration claim is the “pot of gold” in the CCAA proceeding.”

J. Swartz was advised to approach the Canadian Revenue Service for an official decision on the tax matter back in JUNE 2018 , so the KRY-TENOR SS knew about the tax issue and started looking for a way out since MID 2018 (NOT IN MAY 2019 AS PAAU CONTENDS), and they have yet to pay the taxes, take the tax benefit and pay the DIP loan and the noteholders.   

Paau, since you have a connection to the Monitor, ask him when he received the invoices and authorized the payments to PwC and Thorsteinssons for their tax studies for KRY. And once he tells you the dates, ask him why the long delay in executing the distribution per the waterfall.

Also, when you talk to the Monitor, ask him for the list of assets and liabilities that KRY filed at the beginning of the CCAA proceedings and see if there is any mining data or Tax benefit assets listed on it and the value assigned to them.