To answer your question, yes, one always need be on their tiippy toes with regards to the cancellation of commons. Albeit I do not have a crystal ball, but I would imagine that will be a non-issue in the near future for many reason.
As I stated in an earlier post and has been reiterated 100's of times here, this company did not enter BK because it was failing, it simply needed to trim some fat.
Just like you don't appoint your best captain to simply go down with the ship, you don't hire a guy like Rogerson if you expect to fail.
Chemtura also isn't some techy start-up with no asset value, it has quite a bit of intrinsic value as well and therefor is protected from relying on only "quantifiable" value that has in the past brought down valueless billion dollar companies - they are unique with a solid past in the histories of Great Lakes and Crompton.
Also the creation of a shareholders committee is a big deal as well. What this tells me (just from the single letter we have seen) is that there are some large holders fighting for our rights as well.
Lastly, but most important, a court will not just "cancel" the commons without necessity. If (when) as asset sale occurs, there should be little or no reason to cancel the commons. This would NOT be deemed in the best interest by any court if debts are paid and sustainability is not an issue (which it is not).
you see commons get canceled so you can pay debt holders in equity, if all debts are being sufficiently met after an asset sale - no cancellation required.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
