Sherm,

I actually was smiling when reading Judge Silverstein's decision and still am. Her decision was the best the shareholders could hope for, given that there is no property to be distributed, yet, and the Ripeness Doctrine, which precludes any court decision until there is a "rem" and a dispute that can be decided with finality. Put simply, if the property in dispute is not available for distribution, there is no harm that the court can investigate and redress based on the facts and the law.

Regarding Gowling, the case record shows they quit the engagement in January 2019. Yet, Gowling continues to appear as Ad Hoc Shareholders Committee legal counsel of record on the CCAA docket. This despite the fact the Monitor (responsible for maintaining the docket), the Chapter 15 records shows that the CCAA Court, the Debtor, the DIP Lender and all legal counsel involved are fully aware of this fact. I presume that the reason for this is that Gowlings would like to piggy-back on the CCAA Court's injunction (a.k.a. releases) to protect all "contributing parties and their legal counsel and advisors" from future legal actions. In the U.S., such releases are rare and highly controversial, even when the pros and cons are equally weighty reasons. (e.g., Purdue Pharma).

Lastly, I actually have a great respect and admiration for the U.S. Judicial system. Whatever, President Biden's policy regarding Venezuela is, in the end it will prove inconsequential for the Crystallex judicial decision. We will see the required separation of power in action once the presidential powers are used beyond a reasonable limit.