Bradsgold,

To understand why the lead investor wanted a court ruling, you have to understand that the 2004 note holders (or 77% of them) were looking to take control of KRY as their main objective...the same note holders with a history of taking KRY to court.

The lead investor understandably wanted to be sure the 2004 note holders wouldn't derail the plan with protracted court proceedings. You have to understand the 2004 note holders are hostile to the PP, and until they are paid in full (which they DON"T want!!!), they will use any means to sabotage it and try and take control of KRY. (Such as trying to replace the Board of Directors)

Now if "the PLAN" is approved by all the stakeholders and the court, that would count as a "court ruling" and the note holders would have no reasonable basis to challenge it.

Will the shareholders have a vote? This isn't clear. Usually the shareholders are the last to get consideration as the money runs out after the creditors are paid...In this case the shareholders may have a significant stake and that was recognized by Judge Newbould (see para 24 in his Reasons for Judgment)

Hope that helps,

NZranger