Thanks for posting. It looks like the opinion boils down to the issue that Placer Dome breached the agreement with VZ by unilaterally transferring its interests to Vannessa in violation of the contract which required both parties to consent to any transferee. Since Placer breached, there was no valid transfer and Vannessa had no legally protected interest.

Kinda makes you feel good that, despite the futility of doing so, KRY continued to live up to all of its contractual obligations even after we knew we were getting hosed by VZ. Therefore, VZ does not have that argument against KRY.

Also, KRY is mentioned 7 times throughout the opinion. I feel better already.