Cherry picking out tidbits to argue about becomes all water under the bridge. As far as the allegation of spreading misinformation, we all know this is just a message board of no consequence to what is really happening in the real world, and everyone here has an opinion that they are sharing. No worse than your posting that commons will be getting a buck a share, which seems far-fetched considering current events.
I am not/never was a Bondie, so cannot speak on their behalf. Make no mistake, a reorg/rearrangement has been completed. No one could have predicted the future, but anyway CCAA is sliced, it is historically never good for commons. This is just the slow bleed version courtesy of Tenor-Crystallex.
At the time, Bondies bargained with leverage when there were no other options for Crystallex. No one admits the Bondies soon changed their tune big-time once Fung's buddies, Tenor, arrived on the scene. The Bondie plan looks better, only at this point in time, because 14% is higher than the current sub 12%. This is predicated on Newbold being protective of shareholders, as seems to be so highly touted here. Therefore, Newbold would have held Bondies to the "secured" 14% remaining untouched by anyone except commons.
Moving Parties waiting until commons' cut went below 14% verifies this. Otherwise, why not appear much much sooner before letting the common portion slip so much away?
Tenor-Crystallex wanted Newbold to shut down the moving parties motion. Ad hoc needs no permission from anyone, not even CCAA court, to engage in whatever they so choose. There is an award amount that is uncollected, and any way it is sliced the calculated portion can only get smaller for commons with continuing litigation under CCAA, unless everything is overturned by the judge who made all of the rulings up to this point.
Whatever. It is just a message board.
