Some additional thoughts...

Having the same judge rule through the whole CCAA process is not completely guaranteed. Past CCAAs seem to show that when the creditors agree, the courts agree. Not the other way around.

My thought on the biggest advantage, if there truly is one in CCAA, is that KRY can work and manipulate loan negotiations. Not DIP, but the PP.

Greed can be very motivating. Working the current noteholders against their potential replacements, could bode well in KRY's favor. The PP was supposedly very close to closing...

The 90% want/need of the noteholders is still nothing but a rumor, and the potential investors may also have wanted more than the noted 49%. It will likely close somewhere in between. At least, in dealing with both of these lenders KRY knows where they stand and 49% may be the minimal give-away. It is high risk with a potential high reward. For all parties involved in these negotiaitons.

One problem. After seeing the writings of one of the ICSID judges, it is surprising the PP did not close. These lenders want guarantees of return on investment, and it appears they do not see this as such.