Having been involved in dozens of mediations, I thought it might be interesting to point out that most of you in this thread about mediation are doing something similar to what TPL and the J2.5s are doing right now: mediating--i.e., "I want this to happen," . . . "no, I think it should be this," etc. Taking positions and then defending them, while you move to a consensus. The discussions inside unfold in a not--too-dissimilar fashion.

Much of the time, settlement depends upon the experience, depth of knowledge of the subject matter, and perspicacity of the mediator. Ours looks to be strong in the first two categories, but I am unable to comment to any extent on the third. He has a good record of accomplishment, so his acuteness of perception is likely very high and refined. Mediators do not like to end with the judge hearing, "We could not reach a settlement." Unfortunately, some do end that way.

I like our chances, and I believe we hold the upper hand in nearly every respect.

None of this is opinion. It is fact.

Good luck.

tps