I hate playing devil's advocate, I really do. But sometimes the refusal to acknowledge the precariousness of our situation gets to me.
As far as the bondholder suit is concerned, I am reasonably certain that our present situation is not what they had in mind when they loaned us 100 million dollars of their money. So the CVG says we are in good standing as far as the MOC is concerned. So what? The future of the project is not CVG's call. Ortega's decision was a valid administrative decision and it will stand forever unless its rescinded by the ministry of the environment or or a higher power. Saying that we are still in control sounds too much like a game of semantics. We are in control of a stalled project which means we basically control nothing.
I am not sure that a judge isn't going to see through this and side with the bond holders.
I am also not so sure that Donwys is wrong about the MOC. The MOC clearly states that we accept that another branch of the VZ govt may interfere with the project through legislation and /or administrative decision. Ortega's decision was an administrative decision based on environmental concerns and the MOC appears to explicitely allow for this and absolve the other party of responsibility.
When I was researching arbitration decisions it was quite clear that the arbitrators paid attention to the details of contracts when deciding on compensation. On the surface at least, the wording of the MOC appears to have given VZ a possible way out. The arbitrators, if it comes to that, will presumably be independent and objective, and despite the fact that we may feel that we have been wrongfully treated, they will judge the case on its merits and that will include a careful reading of the MOC.
