Thanks for the reply, and for the insights of lawyers that should have a clue.

While they're closer to the realities of such litigation and the settlement process, IMO some of their logic makes little sense.

Examples:

How could a joint motion for an expedited ruling on ACP be part of a "stall tactic"?  This defies logic IMO.  And IMO that ruling was pivotal.

How could JW ignore ruling on that motion (for over a week), yet respond to a joint motion for the Stay in a matter of hours?  Again, defies logic IMO.

Why would it be so near impossible that the numbers associated with a settlement(s) not be announced, when:

- We see such numbers announced for other dispute litigation awards/settlements quite frequently?

and

- Publicizing the numbers, and the precedent they represent, is of IMO extreme importance to our team?

I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight with a friendly messenger, nor those that provided the message.  They should certainly KNOW more than me.  It's just that IMO logic gets in the way!

I'll be so glad when this immediate situation resolves itself!

BTW, on that "best case scenario" thing I did, I should have thrown in one more thing to make it truly best case, that being that when JW rules in our favor on the MSJ, he throws in an injunction! (great Xmas gift for the Js!  Pull product from the shelves during the busiest sales period!  LOL).

Thank you again for your efforts, and apologies for my contrary opinions while I forcefully acknowledge that....

I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE