Two points...to paraphrase...

1. No expropriation except "for public purpose"

2. The value to be given as remuneration to investors shall be the value of the investment just before\at the time of public announcement of said expropriation.

OK...as I stated before...if they hide before the "public purpose" of the environment...we're screwed. Right now...before any official word\confirmation of expropriation, we're trading at 75 cents. With "unofficial" negative carpetbombing in the press prior to the "official" word...our share price will likely go down.

If Hugo singles out KRY on some trumped up charge then the Trade Agreement should serve us in good stead. Now let's see...if I was a lawyer (arguing either side of this case) I would $LOVE$ to get into an extended discussion as to what the true definition of "public purpose" is.

We need to hear the good news that our M.O.A. remains intact and will be honored (possibly with certain changes). Trade Agreement or not....once this 'argument' is officially placed in the domain of the lawyers, I don't see much upside. I'm not lawyer. Perhaps someone can show me the silver lining in this if Hugo, for any reason, says "NO" to KRY. I'm all ears.