Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership II Continues to Organize Opposition to Consent Solicitation by IMAX Corporation

    Catalyst Retains International Law Firm of Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels
LLP To Represent It in Its Opposition

    TORONTO, April 9 /CNW/ - Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership II, a
significant holder of 9.625% Senior Notes Due 2010 issued by IMAX Corporation
(the "Senior Notes"), continues to organize opposition to IMAX's consent
solicitation seeking waiver of certain reporting defaults and a related
amendment of the bond indenture. Discussions are ongoing among holders of
approximately 50% of the face amount of the Senior Notes with respect to
opposing the consent solicitation. Moreover, Catalyst has engaged Brown
Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP to represent it in its opposition to the consent
solicitation. Brown Rudnick will host an organizational conference call of
noteholders on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, at 5:00 p.m. (ET). Interested
noteholders should contact Brown Rudnick, by calling or writing to Robert J.
Stark, 212-209-4862,; or Steven Pohl, 617-856-8594,

    Previously, Catalyst announced its opposition to the consent solicitation
and the fact that it is working with a group of bondholders (the "Opposing
Bondholders") to ensure that serious issues attendant to the consent
solicitation, and IMAX's financial reporting failures, are addressed. The
Opposing Bondholders are most concerned that the impact of financial
restatements that will be required is not yet disclosed, and will further
deteriorate the credit quality of the Senior Notes.

    On April 3, 2007, IMAX Corporation formally commenced the consent
solicitation, by which it seeks waivers and amendments of the indenture
governing the Senior Notes in order to extend until May 31, 2007 (or, at its
election, until June 30, 2007) its deadline to file its annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, and other required reports.

    As described in Catalyst's prior media release, the Opposing Bondholders
contend there are at least two substantive flaws in the consent solicitation,
and at least three procedural concerns. The Opposing Bondholders contend that
the waiver and amendment sought are broader than portrayed by IMAX in public
statements. Specifically, the definition of the waiver, which is set forth
nearly halfway through the consent solicitation document, purports to waive
"any Past Default or Event of Default" arising from IMAX's failure to comply
with the reporting obligations set forth in Section 1019 of the indenture.
Given that the company has acknowledged potential accounting problems spanning
six or more years, it is unclear whether the waiver would cover not only
current reporting problems, but also defaults in prior reporting. The Opposing
Bondholders contend that the scope of any potential waiver and amendment
should be clarified so as to be limited to IMAX's current reporting defaults
in connection with its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006, as well as to shorten the time that IMAX has requested to
make its filing.

    The Opposing Bondholders also contend that the proposed 1% consent fee is
insufficient even if the waiver and amendment are limited to the current
reporting obligations.

    The Opposing Bondholders also intend to explore potential wrongdoing by
IMAX in connection with the company's delay in advising noteholders of IMAX's
inability to meet its reporting deadlines. On March 16, 2007, the company
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Form 12b-25 Notification
of Late Filing, indicating that its Form 10-K filing was expected to be made
within a 15-day grace period. Despite that, only days later, IMAX apparently
sought a waiver under its bank credit agreement, prior to advising the
noteholders or the public that it would be unable to file its Form 10-K within
the 15-day grace period. IMAX's actions raise serious questions, both in
respect of the veracity of the company's statements in its initial 12b-25
Notification and its subsequent failure promptly to notify the market of its
inability to meet its deadlines.

    The Opposing Bondholders also intend to challenge IMAX's solicitation of
support for its consent solicitation prior to formally announcing or
commencing the consent solicitation process, and note that IMAX has not
publicly disclosed all the terms and conditions of the agreements that it has
reached with other noteholders. The Opposing Bondholders also have concerns
about the company's knowledge of its reporting problems when it recently
negotiated compensation for its co-chief executive officers.

For further information:

For further information: Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership II Gabriel de
Alba, 416-945-3020 or Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP
Robert J. Stark, 212-209-4862 or Steven Pohl,

Organization Profile

Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership II

More on this organization

Custom Packages

Browse our custom packages or build your own to meet your unique communications needs.

Start today.

CNW Membership

Fill out a CNW membership form or contact us at 1 (877) 269-7890

Learn about CNW services

Request more information about CNW products and services or call us at 1 (877) 269-7890