btw, mediation does not set a precedent (usually private - usually not published- besides courts of limited jurisdiction and even "superior" courts cant really be said to be setting a precedent in the current judicial activism climate until an appellate court upholds such a decision), nor can a court force mediation (absent the usual exception to the rule).

Mediation has to be chosen by the parties. It is less contentious or expensive and more informal/faster than arbitration,which itself is less expensive,less confrontational and less complicated and faster than cases processed by the broken court system.

So the fact that a dispute is in mediation is a good sign the parties wish to and are capable of reaching an agreement. Mediation was designed for reconciliation.

I dont know anything about the dispute other than what a well known longtime basher posted on another site,which wasn't much the last I looked a long time ago (when the subject was 1st broached on this site).