They just lost the last shred credibility they might of have had up to this point.

They can seek leave for appeal like I can hope hair will grow on my head again...about the same chance of success too.

Zero.

NZranger

Fenalet, you should look up the word "asinine" in regard to your last comment.

NZ ranger

The financing isn't a done deal until the Noteholder's appeal is dealt with...

Plus stocks on the pink sheets are easily manipulated by the MM's especially now when Canadians are effectively barred from trading making the market even less liquid.

I would like to see KRY back on the TSX-V once the financing is done...but I doubt it will ever happen.

Pink sheets are a nightmare...

RM was probably referring to an Open or Closed door hearing which determines if it's open to the public or not.

The Noteholders have filed a "motion for leave to appeal" which is asking for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Usually this is done in written form, submitting a factum with all the reasons for appeal. Grounds for appeal are usually restricted to errors of law or errors of fact in the original ruling / decision. This can be a long process with a lot of back and forth paperwork between the parties.

I would guess that the hearing is being held to expedited the process...

The Noteholders have one shot at convincing the judges that an appeal is merited.

The CCAA is meant to be flexible and I think Newbould has a fair bit of latitude under the CCAA act.

I say the Noteholders have a 1 in 10 chance.

NZranger

Stroot is correct,

Newbould is going to take as much time as he can to research the issues before making a ruling. Judges, even Newbould who previously was a star lawyer in commercial law, aren't going to rush through a ruling to have it overturned on appeal because of an error in law.

Newbould could extend the stay at his discretion if he requires more time.

Expecting a ruling at the hearing is ludicrous in a case like this, expecting anything before Monday is premature.

NZranger

My take on the CTO:

The CTO is a defensive tactic on Crystallex's part and taken in context of the New Shareholders Right's plan, and the "Standstill agreements" in the NDA's in the Dip financing bidding process, is part of an overall defensive plan against the Noteholders.

A MCTO would have achieved the same thing and would have prevented the Noteholders from accumulating enough shares to gain a blocking vote, and thus gaining more control over the company.

Granting a MCTO is discretionary on the part of the regulatory board but a CTO is automatic in the event of non-compliance with the reporting requirements. While KRY management would have preferred a MCTO it's possible that that they were hedging with the CTO.

I refer you to Mr. Mattoni, the lawyer representing the Noteholders, he mentions these issues in his affidavit.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion only and I have a cynical and devious mind...

NZranger