is there a difference between saying equity holders and the wording holders of existing equity.

Appears the same to me. Maybe it is legalese? Intent of that portion of the motion being called out, concerning holders of existing equity, is to make sure all debt is paid beforehand of any dividends to commons and preferreds. Although, Tenor preferreds have their own special deal going. And, who knows about the future.

If the ICSID award leftovers (after debt and fees) were completely distributed to shareholders, it implies the company scuttles itself? Who is to say the company will not just take whatever award is left over (after all debt and fees are paid off) and re-invest it in mining operations? Hard to tell what the future holds once Crystallex Management, Tenor and Bondies are all officially in cahoots.

does this mean if they raise more money through new equity shares they will get paid before existing share holders? Like a different class of shares?

What can, and cannot, be done in the restructuring is outlined within the proposed Arrangement/Compromise. It does not appear to limit issuance of shares. The future is hard to predict. I do know there are Crystallex Class "B" preferreds mentioned in company filings, that previously I jokingly called "B" for Bondies, but who knows. It does appear that the company will need to do some sort of financing to survive the wait until whatever ICSID award is collected.

from what you've read are existing share holders better off siding with the noteholder plan?

At this time, without any Crystallex disclosure of a proposed Arrangement/Compromise, seems it is the only game in town. It is a bit concerning when the judge has requested, twice, that Crystallex bring an Arrangement/Compromise to the table, and Crystallex has not disclosed their idea of an Arrangement/Compromise. Maybe Crystallex saved shareholders those lawyer fees of drafting the Arrangement/Compromise, by making the Noteholders do it?

Taking sides, well, I don't necessarily agree with the Noteholder's proposal because shareholders bear the brunt of the debt payments, salaries, and fees. But, it is what it is.