It doesn't matter, they both amount to the same thing.

The question that has to be asked is, "What have the Defendants agreed in return for certain rights to the MMP Portfolio?"

The Court was aware of the damages sought and, I humbly suggest, would not have agreed to the Order for Dismissal, nor to retaining jurisdiction, had the settlement been outrageous.

For good cause, this Court hereby approves the Stipulation for Dismissal and Orders that the remaining claims among these parties shall be dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice and Defendant TAEC's counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court expressly retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding, the terms of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

Toshiba has already been sanctioned by this Court on another matter, but it is a positive that the Defendants will have to answer to the same Court in the event of default. Now ask who had the upper hand.

Be well