Civi,

The CCAA purpose is to allow a company to restructure and avoid bankruptcy. The main part of the process is "The Plan" which in theory will allow the company to restructure while balancing the rights and interests of the stakeholders for the benefit of all.

To answer your specific question, you have to take J. Newbould's point of view. He's going to examine any restructuring plan with a critical eye...is it practical? Does it balance the interests of the stakeholders (KRY, bondholders, shareholders) Does it have the recommendation of the Monitor (Ernest Young).

Things in our favour:

1.

J. Newbould rejected the noteholders initial order application, and in his Reasons for Decision, said that the shareholders potentially have a large stake in the outcome (para 24) and their interests should be considered (para 21) and it was premature at this point to cancel the shares (para 22) and would not be a fair balancing of the interests of all stakeholders (para 26).

2.

Newbould endorsed KRY proposed "Initial Order" as "in keeping with the objectives of the CCAA and will permit a fair and balanced process at this initial stage".

3.

J. Newbould has ruled against the noteholders in 2 previous cases and in my opinion aware of the noteholders agenda to take over the company.

In my opinion, this judge is not going to accept a plan that screws the KRY shareholders.

NZranger