Arbitrators are free to use whatever value they want (or none at all) in a lost profits claim and it will come down to weighing the opposing expert reports and party arguments.

My gut feeling is that Crystallex would likely argue for a gold value at the time of the breach, which is a fairly standard contract approach to damages. To look into the future for a gold value (any date after the breach) becomes too speculative IMO. I would think that after Venezuela tries unsuccessfully to argue that there should be no lost profits, they would default to a valuation at the time of the original contract to mitigate the size of the lost profits.

There is no way to predict the outcome of a valuation argument at this point, and IMO the Gold Reserve case will not guide our panel -- the Gold Reserve outcome will only give us comfort (or not) as to whether a panel in a similar case allows lost profits. The actual amount awarded to us will be specific to our case and the opposing party arguments.

p.s. condolences to the Bruins fans out there, they looked great if you just cut 17 seconds out of that last game.