IMO, no coincidence at all. As I've opined, in the digEcor litigation, I think the IP and other issues aside from the Maycom debackle will evapoate (and rightfully so), but EDIG may be force to give back the fees for production oversight due to fairly obvious non-performance. They may also have to pay some penalty for very late delivery, assuming digEcor can prove damages.

Yes, it may seem pretty obvious that digEcor pulled some shenanigans with Maycom, but how do you prove it?  The only item that may save EDIG from penalties would be effective arguments regarding digEcor making that final payment, independent of EDIG, to Maycom - that smells pretty bad.  IMO, THAT may save EDIG from late delivery penalties (again, final payment usually coincides with delivery acceptance). But production oversight? It would be tough to argue that this action was performed when production wasn't even happening and EDIG didn't even know.

JMHOs, which may be worthless.

SGE