Ian,

Imo, Fung cannot try to convince or show in detail what is taking place with VZ to the noteholders. If you do then you are admitting a change in control has occurred.

A few examples: If one option is a jv, that is a change in control, moc axed.

Another option is a buyout/merger/etc with another company, change in control, moc axed.

Another option is a payoff from Vz., again change in control, moc axed.

Of course, for the sake of discussion, a permit is possible.

But, if you are working on the first three options above than you would be admitting to or at least implying a change in control has/is taking place. I believe that is why words like resolution/solution has been used by Crystallex.

I don't know how the noteholders can win a case like this since Crystallex has a letter that specifically states the moc is in good standing. I think the judge will rule in Crystallex' favor fairly soon.