jimmijazz: I wish there was a conspiracy, not that it would make any difference to the outcome but it might give you some relief. Unfortunately there isn't. What I said about the enforcement case #1:16-cv-00661 is correct. There was some progress in Dec. 2016 (I believe it was a procedural matter), Tenor have not delayed anything, VZ are responsible for all the delays and the timing of the case now is with the court. You've quoted a sur-reply in Nov. 2016 by VZ - THIS IS A DELAYING TACTIC which led to at least 3 months of delay. Following the sur-reply the matter is before the court - there is nothing the petitioner nor respondent can do.

jimmijazz the way you pursue an answer does you credit but just about everything you have posted about enforcement is wrong. You are not helping fellow shareholders by making such definitive statements when you do not understand the matter nor the process. I think I've answered you 5 or 6 times now - you didn't believe me the first time and won't now. Maybe it is time to move on?

In any case, the court will rule on the motion for a pre-judgment bond in due course. If it is granted, and with FSIA it could go either way, VZ will have to scramble to do a deal (as they did with GRZ). Without a bond, as soon as Crystallex win enforcement, VZ will appeal, keeping this in court for many more years.