I'm sorry Ron, but I can't let this go. Yes NDAs and CC agreements as part of settlements/contracts are commonplace, and everything you say is near correct IMO. The problem I have with your discussion is that it seems to assume that both parties want the CC included (and many times they do), or that it isn't that big a deal one way or the other to the party considering the opposition's request for CC.

But when it is clearly in the interest of the requesting party for obvious reasons, and clearly NOT in the interest of the other party who wants to shout it from the rooftops knowing that it will benefit them immediately, there must be a "give/take" for inclusion of the clause, and a very compelling reason for the request.

One could respond saying that perhaps the Js simply refused to settle unless the CC was included. Okay, but if it were that important for our team to exclude the clause, we could just lower the price of the ticket until it became more practical for the Js to accept. The bottom line is that if one party wants the CC and the other doesn't, there will be consideration exchanged in order to reconcile. I'm convinced the Js paid heavy for the CC.

I stand by my words in:

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

I'll reinforce that by saying Alliacense announced the settlements, and PTSC remained silent. No chance of risking the deal through our behavior.

But, hey, it's just another opinion.

SGE