It seems logical that there would be more settlements, the problem is that this input by the judge has skewed the negotiation in favor of the defendants and they could eliminate any future exposure for a minimal settlement. If DM really thinks that they can sucessfully rebut what the judge has so far ruled, then they should refuse minimal settlements and say "we'll see you in court." Just like the stock price is, in my opinion, too low to sell for the shareholders, reduced settlements are not worth DM's 4+ years on this project. It seems like it has come down to a negotiation. So far several defendants have blinked--we will see where it takes us from here.