Wild speculation game

NIRC in January

Settlement(s) following this announcement

Rejection of any future reexam request

Announcement of new CEO shortly before the ASHM with introductions at the meeting

Positive news regarding Baroni Assessment of PDSG

Possible resignation of one or more board members and replacement(s) announced at ASHM

Here I go….out on that limb, hopefully not alone…..Possible news that the MOU in the J3 settlement was tied to some future event (i.e. the final/final NIRC and rejection of all future reexams). Taken from 90/009457 reexam litigation search

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. The Agreement which incorporates, the Memorandum of Understanding, is entered as an additional attachment, under seal as exhibit A. Signed by Judge John T. Ward on 12/20/07

If the business resolution was as many believe, closure to a settlement, that produced not much more than a drop in the bucket (in terms of settlement $$$) …why then the need for sealed documents for which the court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing? Could be the tsunami or nothing at all.

Please….no need to rehash all of this again. It is my opinion which may or may not be shared by the majority of posters.