I'm a little late into all of the threads discussing the GRZ PR and how it effects KRY. I did a quick glance and did not see what I was looking for. So here it is:

GRZ bought a piece of property and worked and invested for years trying to mine it. As owners of the property, they never really had a full permit to mine... just to do preliminary work on/at the site. VZ's new way of doing business is to own the land and partner with the mining company to mine the site.

KRY never owned the property, they just have an iron-clad contract to mine it.

The issue here (I assume) is that GRZ was never guaranteed, in writing, that they were going to be the company to mine the property. Just that they owned the land. VZ can take the land and say they have decided to take on a partner to mine it without being in breech of any mining contract with GRZ. Did GRZ get caught up in an assumption (of their own) they now have to right in court?

With KRY, they (VZ), are in breech of a promise to let them mine a specific location if they did all of the preliminary work (and they did).

I don't know the answer to all of this. But I do know their (GRZ's) case is much different than ours.

Once again... just my opinion.