CCAA is really not all that difficult to understand once the researched history is known.

There I go again ASSuming! From your earlier post to Cubbies I ASSumed that you were simply not understanding CCAA.

Cubbies,

There is a different level of responsibility by management in CCAA. CCAA keeps the company alive so it emerges as a different debt-free company. Some say Crystallex will liquidate upon award collection, along with many other rumors being floated about such as being able to privately trade shares, as well as the judge reversing previous judgements because of this opt-in deal. Obviously private trading is not happening and everyone will learn of the other claims sometime in the future.

What you have noted about management responsibility changes in CCAA as management only wants to keep the company alive. History shows this and gives reason to award equity being traded for time and money. Gowlings partial representation could be odd, but then there have been lots of odd claims previously. If Gowlings says they can do whatever, and they claim that they will increase shareholder value from the current base, seems there is nothing for an opt-in to lose.

IMO you are so far off base I didn't even bother to reply but I will now. Nowhere does going into CCAA absolve the companies BOD from their fiduciary duty to shareholders. Suggesting that managements responsibilities have changed is simply not true. I'm not a lawyer and obiviously you aren't either. If you find any documents to support that management and the BOD no longer has a fiduciary duty to shareholders please post them.

So hopefully you are not fully understanding how CCAA works otherwise it looks like your trying to maake excuses for management failing us shareholders.

JJ