Jake - what you say may well be accurate. But, it doesn't describe the particulars of the document that people are talking about today.
In that document, there is clearly substantial discussion from the judge/arbiter in which he takes a very clear position on the merits of the claims.
Further, the actual settlement results in the return of the vast majority of the options/warrants that were the topic of the dispute. So, while neither party may have admitted the allegations, the bulk of the options/warrants were returned.
And, in this settlement, the judge is required to approve the settlement. That is the basis for the entire document. In fact, the judge indicated he will approve most of the settlement, but asked the parties to keep working on the technical language of the future release of liability, as the judge feels it is too broad.
In that document, there is clearly substantial discussion from the judge/arbiter in which he takes a very clear position on the merits of the claims.
Further, the actual settlement results in the return of the vast majority of the options/warrants that were the topic of the dispute. So, while neither party may have admitted the allegations, the bulk of the options/warrants were returned.
And, in this settlement, the judge is required to approve the settlement. That is the basis for the entire document. In fact, the judge indicated he will approve most of the settlement, but asked the parties to keep working on the technical language of the future release of liability, as the judge feels it is too broad.
1
