RE: CBCA VS CCAA I'm the one who proposed moving 2013 and 2014 to later maturities? I don't see that one from one reality.
In any case, I see problems with your post. What makes you think that anyone outside of 2013 and 2014 MTNs stand to lose in CCAA. Everyone stands to lose in CCAA. The MTNs and banks will get back half their money, regardless of maturity. The common equity, preferreds, and even debentures will likely recover zero. No one wins in CCAA.
The easiest way to avoid a default here is to negotiate the 2013 and 2014 to a later maturity. They would surely prefer the prospect of a 100% recovery to a guarantee of a 50%?
Next, with 2013 and 2014 moved sideways, we have two more years to pay back the banks. We have to get face to face with them to extend the Q1 2013 maturity. A strong management could do that. The banks gain nothing from CCAA since that would certainly lose them principal.
The questions in my mind are:
1) Does Yellow management actually want to avoid a default? I get the feeling they aren't very strong, and would actually want default because that way they can wipe out debt and make their own jobs easier. Management will pad its own pockets during a CCAA action with more cheap shares anyway. Does management have interests that align with shareholders here?
2) What good is the CBCA option here? If we are negotiating with creditors directly to move maturities, why would we want to further complicate matters by requiring shareholders to also vote on the action? The only reason I can see to use CBCA would be *if* CBCA required a smaller percentage of creditors in order to secure a change of maturity. Does anyone have details on percentage votes required with and without CBCA?