Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership II Announces Intention to Oppose Consent Solicitation by IMAX Corporation.

Other noteholders of 9.625% Senior Notes Due 2010 join Catalyst in opposition; S&P and Moody's place IMAX ratings under review as accounting irregularities not yet contained

TORONTO -- Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership II, a significant holder of senior notes (9.625% Senior Notes Due 2010) in IMAX Corporation, announces its intention to oppose IMAX's consent solicitation seeking waiver of reporting defaults. Catalyst is working with a group of bondholders (together, the "Opposing Bondholders") to ensure the serious issues attendant to the consent solicitation and IMAX's financial reporting failures are addressed. Other noteholders of 9.625% Senior Notes Due 2010 are urged to contact Catalyst.

As noted above, the waiver request comes at a time when the ratings agencies have put the credit rating of the bonds under negative review and the Opposing Bondholders are most concerned that the impact of the financial restatements is not yet contained and will further deteriorate the credit quality of the bonds.

On April 3, 2007, IMAX Corporation commenced a formal consent solicitation seeking a waiver and related amendments of the indenture governing the company's 9.625% Senior Notes Due 2010, in order to extend the deadline to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 and all other reports required to be filed by it under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, until May 31, 2007 or, at its election, until June 30, 2007 (the "Consent Solicitation"). IMAX's media release accompanying the consent solicitation claims the company already has obtained 67% of the consents necessary to effectuate the waiver and amend the bond indenture.

The Opposing Bondholders contend that there are at least two serious flaws in the consent solicitation itself, in addition to at least three serious concerns regarding the process and circumstances under which IMAX has undertaken to obtain the waiver and amend the bond indenture. The Opposing Bondholders contend that the waiver and amendment sought pursuant to the consent solicitation are broader than portrayed by IMAX in its public statements relating to the waiver. Set forth nearly halfway through the consent solicitation is the proposed waiver, which purports to waive "any Past Default or Event of Default" arising out of IMAX's failure to comply with the Section 1019 reporting provisions of the indenture. Given that the company has publicly acknowledged potentially serious accounting and reporting issues spanning six years or more, it is unclear whether the requested waiver is intended to cover not only the current Annual Report on Form 10-K but any other potential defaults arising out any infirmities in prior financial reporting. The Opposing Bondholders also contend that the proposed 1% consent fee is woefully insufficient even if the waiver were limited to the reporting requirements for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Further, the Opposing Bondholders intend to explore any potential wrongdoing by IMAX in connection with the company's delay in advising noteholders of IMAX's inability to meet its financial reporting deadlines. On March 16, 2007, the company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Form 12b-25 Notification of Late Filing, and indicated that its Form 10-K filing was expected to be made within a 15-day grace period. Despite making that indication publicly, IMAX apparently sought, only days later, a waiver under its bank credit agreement--prior to advising the noteholders or the public generally that it would be unable to file its Form 10-K within the 15-day grace period. IMAX's actions raise serious questions for the Opposing Bondholders, both in respect of the veracity of the company's statements in its initial 12b-25 Notification of Late Filing and its subsequent failure to promptly notify the market of its inability to meet the requisite deadlines. Finally, IMAX's apparent solicitation of only certain bondholders prior to initiation of the formal consent solicitation raises serious concerns about the process undertaken by IMAX and potential violation of the indenture terms. The Opposing Bondholders intend to explore fully these issues, including with respect to the validity of the purported pre-solicitation consents. The Opposing Bondholders also have concerns about the circumstances and the state of facts known by the company's board of directors and management at the time of the recent negotiation of the compensation agreements for the co-chief executive officers.

For these reasons, Catalyst intends to withhold its consent. Noteholders interested in addressing these significant issues should contact the Opposing Bondholders, represented by Catalyst.