You have got to love the offhand reference that Newbould made to Century Services ( http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2010/2010scc60/2010scc60.html ) for the proposition that he can do what he thinks is best and that the CCAA is flexible, but says we don't really need to decide such a thing and the parties need to keep working. Kudos to Reyes' team for putting that club in Newbould's bag. Here is the cited text from Century Services:

There are three ways of exiting CCAA proceedings. The best outcome is achieved when the stay of proceedings provides the debtor with some breathing space during which solvency is restored and the CCAA process terminates without reorganization being needed. The second most desirable outcome occurs when the debtor’s compromise or arrangement is accepted by its creditors and the reorganized company emerges from the CCAA proceedings as a going concern. Lastly, if the compromise or arrangement fails, either the company or its creditors usually seek to have the debtor’s assets liquidated under the applicable provisions of the BIA or to place the debtor into receivership. As discussed in greater detail below, the key difference between the reorganization regimes under the BIA and the CCAA is that the latter offers a more flexible mechanism with greater judicial discretion, making it more responsive to complex reorganizations. (accent added by no_bear).