Don't want to open up an arguement gmarf, but imo your wrong. With the contract kry signed with Vz there are provisions in there that could nuke our contract(the CVG/VZ contract as well) if Vz makes any laws and decrees that could affect this. Kry admits this as well.

Bottom line is that Kry signed off and agreed to these risks by signing the contract with these provisions in it. So how in arbitration could they say "oh we signed that agreeing to this risk but now we don't think it's fair" Vz basically said to kry if they change thier mind it's tough titty. Kry said where do I sign. They agreed to this crap. It's fair if both parties sign, no? Well maybe not fair, but is binding.

This could be the biggest arguement in any arb case imo