.

Been here a while, and seen plenty of shenanigans perpetrated on shareholders. Not all born by the company, sad to say. Real people lost lots of real money through "insider info" guised as "facts" by those purporting to be "in the know."

Am no more "sensitive" than anybody else, but what is different is I perform the DD that others will not, and will post those facts here, so people are not blindsided. I do not wear rose colored glasses, and treat all claims, company or otherwise, as needing verification. Those who are devoted and attached-at-the-hip to Crystallex, do not appreciate this.

If posting facts and noting where anyone can focus their DD so they can think on their own and form their own conclusions is surmising, then so be it.

In any way, if something seems murky, my experience with this saga says there probably is an ulterior motive to it. A little personal DD clears up a lot. I share my DD plus where it can be verified vs. just providing DD claims (sounds a lot like teaching to fish vs. giving a fish, eh?). Lots of confusion would be avoided if folks did their own personal DD to verify outside claims.
Enough on DD.

We might be on the same page, but speaking of confusion...
...They don't represent shareholders even if they want to, they represent themselves, so I doubt the court will grant the motion if you are right.
...I don't think this committee has a cat in hell's chance of benefitting anyone but I think they are genuinely trying to help the little guy.
Whoa! Yeah, ok. Looks like covering all the bases? Too funny.
Some personal DD might have prevented this. Just sayin'.

Hoping the motion helps "little guys," and not just more false hopium.

.