Here is the link to the CCAA procedures I previously posted back in March.
http://agoracom.com/ir/Crystallex/forums/discussion/topics/526258-ccaa-procedures/messages/1665799#message
Back in March, my post only received a few thumbs. Likely there is continued disbelief. No biggie. I did not make the CCAA procedures up. My DD entailed extensive research and time, and a review of the CCAA regulations. Anyone else would find the exact same information, if they cared to look. Do the DD. It ain't pretty. One thing about the CCAA regulations and guidance. They trump opinion and speculation, and judges follow the guidance.
Notice in the last two paragraphs...
"Creditors must provide/file Proof of Claim with the Monitor to be able to vote on the Plan. Company files Plan of Arrangement and forwards copies to creditors/shareholders. Meeting of creditors (and possibly shareholders) is called to vote on the Plan. Plan is binding if within each class of creditors the following is achieved: a majority of the proven creditors in that class, by number, as well as 2/3 of creditors in that class, by dollar value, approve of the Plan. If all classes of creditors (and shareholders) approve the Plan, the Court likely approves the Plan as a final step. With Court approval, company operates under the Plan until it satisfies the requirements of the Plan.
If a creditor class or the Court does not approve the Plan, the Stay is lifted. The cause the company filed for CCAA protection will likely return and, quite likely, will result in receivership or bankruptcy of the company."
It appears the company is currently trying to finish up the upper paragraph. Whether the company or the bondies have the upper hand actually matters not. They only need to agree on a Plan. Also, note that nowhere does it say that parties must be reasonable or nice in their negotiations. The "squeeze" goes both ways, regardless of speculation. My DD of companies agreeing on a Plan found that many times the shareholders got little, if anything, from a Plan. Although it may sound outrageous for the creditors to, "get it all," it actually is not unusual in CCAA for creditors to get it all, regardless of what is considered, "fair," to shareholders.
In the second paragraph, note that there is the contingency for when parties cannot agree. This is JJ's scorched earth nightmare. It can, and does, happen.
The more recent shorter Stays appear to be a strong indication that the judge is keeping this CCAA on procedure to try and get concensus on a Plan. While performing DD on this, I was unable to find numerous similar situations that called for extending the stay for years and years, as has been speculated. The odds of having Stays extended for years and years are slim to none. Still, it is possible that it may happen. No one can predict the future, or the courts.
This may not be what folks want to read, but every shareholder should be aware of the CCAA procedures, and most likely possible outcomes. Before blaming me, as has been done in the past, remember that my posts neither made Canadian holders (delisted in December 2011 and finalized on Friday the 13th in April 2012) into stuckholders, nor put the company on the edge of being possibly scuttled in the near future. That credit goes elsewhere.
Am sincere when I post that I hope the best for commons.
