RE: retraction right "Right, 2$ limit, and now its 3¢. What made sense then with respect to anti-dilution makes the same sense today."
You lost me. They mathematically put a cap of 12.5 common shares per preferred share. Above $2 it was less than 12.5 and equaled $25 in value. Why if they had no intention of using it did they put that 12.5 ratio limit in there? According to some it is meaningless because they were always going to pay $25 so that statement had no purpose...Do you believe the lawyers and accountants had that put in there with no purpose?
"Pref A holders paid 25$, that is "their money" "
No it is not. You purchased a piece of the company with that money. The financial fate of the company is your financial fate. The debt holders did not purchase anything. If 2 people put $1,000 on a company but one bought a piece of the company (Shares) and the other loaned them the $1, 000 for start up costs then where does each stand if the company's value went up 10 fold? Your shares would be worth $10,000 but my debt is still worth $1,000. How fair is that? Have you ever heard of the shareholders giving part of their profit to the creditors because "We are in this together"?...Ya right !...But if the company falters, then that is when we are "In it together". You took the risks and were open to both the rewards and losses, but according to some if there is rewards then they are all yours but if there is losses well then the debtholders have to take some of it.
"So yes, with a long term vision, protecting shareholders by controlling the size of the float is important."
Size of the float that exists prior to any arrangement is irrelevant because the old float is wiped out or virtually wiped out to make the creditor arrangement. New shares are issued.
" If YLO is to restore its connection to the capital markets
The creditors are the capital markets. That is why the laws exist the way they do. If the owners (Shareholders) were allowed to rip off the people that loaned them money then you never would see a penny again. That is why the laws protect the creditors. The company offered no contract to you when you purchase a share of the company, but they most certainly signed a contract that they would pay their debts.
Lestat, you have no laws to support your position and you have no case history either...But believe what you wish. The laws state the the debtors are not entitled to shave off part of the debts they owe and keep it for themselves....and no, we the capital markets would not be pleased if you were allowed to do that. It sucks, but no one put a gun to your head to buy a piece of this company...Now did they? Does the bank drive around in the car you bought with the money that you borrowed from them?...and that is probably why the bank does not "share" in the repair bill when you crack it up...See my point?