Not sure where you are seeing that shareholders don't lose out completely.

page 52 of the PDF document or page 43 of the actual document includes in the table of contents with the following " no distributions to holders of existing equity "

I haven't read the whole document but what should be clear to the judge is this is another attempt by the noteholders to take everything.

I typical legal fashion the noteholders say that crystallex is burning too much money in CCAA protection while in fact it is the noteholders themselves that are causing the high burn rate.

The noteholders want to run us out of money by having huge legal and court costs. The fact they haven't paid the amount ordered by the court to us is further evidence.

While I'm obviously prejudice against what the noteholders are proposing I would be surprised if the judge said he has changed his mind and the noteholders deserve everything.

Crystallex has a motion asking the judge which path to follow. I think the reason there is no date for an extension is that if the judge decides that a stay is the best option then it will be a lengthy one.