It is NOT significant. There is no spin, it is simply not an issue. It has nothing to do with the prior auditors and the opinion is an UNQUALIFIED opinion.

I am a CPA licensed in Arizona and California (and was a former auditor for the firm now known as Deloitte and Touche). What it may mean is that the company did not have an adequate set of internal controls and that the auditors placed NO reliance on internal controls when performing the annual audit, although the auditors disclaim any opinion on internal control. (I have yet to fully digest the details of the annual report)

Indeed, the auditors issued an unqualified opinion stating that the financial statements fairly reflect the position of the company:

In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Crystallex International Corporation as at December 31, 2006 and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2006 in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.

"As described in Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements, the consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2006 and for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2006 have been restated. We therefore withdraw our previous audit report dated March 27, 2007, except as to then Note 17, which is as at March 29, 2007, and October 22, 2007 as to the effects of the previous restatement described in then Note 19.

The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly we express no such opinion."