LOL. Nice try but you didn't provide any factual sources so you are not stating facts. You read that S-B has purchased Vivitar and have made assumptions. Assumptions like "S-B gutted Vivitar Corp. and ceased operations, so there is nothing left to go after, no one to negotiate with and no reason for Vivitar to settle". Question: If there's no reason for Vivitar to settle, why were they engaged in settlement talks with EDIG? That is a fact from Doc 47 as follows:

"The Parties are engaged in attempts to work out a settlement."

And your statement that only Vivitar's lawyers (not Vivitar) were involved in the settlement talks with EDIG is inaccurate. We know as a fact the "Parties" referenced are EDIG and Vivitar (not their attorneys) since the Court made that distinction in Doc 32 (which is an order of the Court):

2. Oral and written communications between an expert witness (for any party) and the party, their attorneys or representatives, ...

More proof can be seen from this statement found on the US Supreme Court website,

“No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, ..."

-----------------

As for my use of the word pending, I suggest you refer to The American-Heritage dictionary. The first definition of pending means "not yet decided" which was exactly the situation last week when I posted Doc 47. The Parties were engaged in attempts to work out a settlement and the issue was not yet decided. So to answer your question, I was stating a fact.

Your writing style, ease at finding fault with EDIG and argumentativeness reminds me of She Who Shall Not Be Named. Why is that?