Jimmy, ... issues? No, I'm the one with issues because I post here way too much ;-)

Am still sticking to the Lender/Bondholder/Noteholder only protecting their investment. How they go about it may be disagreeable to us, but if that is the way they roll, that is the way they roll. Seems KRY also agreed to the loan terms. Companies need to be responsible for their debt. I don't agree with making the evil Lender out to be the bad guy. Heck, Lenders are blamed for everything from liar loans to global warming.

It just seems to be construed now, as being so very wrong, that the evil Lender wants their money. Likely because it involves KRY and is hitting very close to home for shareholders, a stock investment which everyone here wants to also protect. It is normal for feelings to get involved and tensions to run high. But, It's All Just Business.

As far as the Lenders wanting it all. Can't hurt to ask. Was it outrageous? Maybe to me or you (and the judge), but It's All Just Business. Could be a negotiation ploy. Some ask for the moon because, who knows, maybe it will be accepted. In later negotiations, it is easy to lower demands, but tough to increase demands. But, now the Lender is cooling their heels, and likely will do so for quite some time, waiting for payment - despite the agreed upon loan terms. Guess the handsome pay the Bondholder received means they are now earning their keep for their trouble of collecting. This is what happens when loaning money to someone without income. It's All Just Business.

I have not seen any information confirming that the Bondholders blocked the PP for nearly three months (actually more) while KRY offered any takers 49% of the arb-award, plus 20% on the loan. That is a pretty substantial ROI so there should have been a stampede to get in. Or, maybe new potential investors found this to be a case of, "too good to be true." Gotta admit, it is a suspiciously substantial payout for something that seems so sure. Granted, it is possible that the lender blocked the PP for three-plus months, to protect their investment. But, again, not finding substantiated info on that. Read a rumor of them asking for 90% of the arb-award, but that came out in the affidavit as an "unreasonable amount." More than likely, there were just plain not enough takers willing to take the risk for the offered reward. So, KRY files CCAA. That is what happens with big debt and no income. It's All Just Business.

But wait, there's more. CCAA does not necessarily mean immediately attending to the PP under court order right away. It means DIP financing first, likely through the Bondholders. Why,... because Bondholders do not want their loan subordinate to any other, and want to protect their investment. Also, establishing a Plan to repay creditors, with 2/3 majority approval of creditors necessary, by number and credit amount so large creditors can protect their investment. Then KRY can tend to the PP, if it is part of the Plan. In CCAA, KRY will have to get along with the Bondholders, and the Bondholders will have to get along with KRY. Period. It's All Just Business.

Finally, still standing by my thought the original Bondholders were a savior back in the day. Without them, all of this might have happened, well, back in the day. When someone wants a loan, who becomes the best buddy all of a sudden. A Lender. Then "fuhgeddaboutem" until they come to collect. Uh-Oh, they want their money. Who'd of thought that evil-ogre-lookin'-fella would actually want their money back. Current potential investors are seeing what has transpired, concerning loan payback problems, and I speculate this may possibly have a tiny bit to do with the high reward requested/offered in the PP.

CCAA has allowed KRY to kick the "lack of liquidity can" deadline down the road.

Spec'in the PP succeeds. When - unknown. Give-Away - unknown. Market hates unknowns.

This will be interesting, and possibly a very good learning experience on how business is done.