It also noted that the declassification project sent to Mr. Lumsden “reflected the agreement and included an exception in favour of Brian Lumsden, as he had requested. The applicants were not free to oppose the authorisation, and they cannot rely on it to renounce its agreement. Not only did the parties reach an agreement, but an unblocking was a duration of the agreement. On April 10, a new Blix Street attorney wrote to the Cassidys` attorney and stated, “Bill Straw and Blix Street have instructed the undersigned to act as transaction attorney in negotiating a settlement agreement on the aforementioned reason. [¶] We have pointed out to our clients, on the basis of the writings submitted to us so far for review, that we consider that the short-form concord agreement alleged by the parties is neither binding nor enforceable for several reasons, including by way of example and not as a restriction, (i) the omission of at least one necessary party (to say, defendant Gelbard) as a signatory to the act; and (ii) the ambiguities of a material nature contained therein. On April 24, Blix Street`s new lawyer reiterated that the settlement agreement was “neither binding nor enforceable” because Gelbard had not signed the agreement and that “there was no meeting of heads under many essential conditions.” Blix Street argues that the Cassidys breached the agreement by failing to forward the dispute to an arbitrator over the selection of a production crew for the film. . . .