Interesting interpretation, settlement proposal. Judge Sweeney set the framework in her opinion to coax both sides for such a proposal going forward? Seems plausible to me.
What is the status report January 10, 2020 about? A settlement proposal?
"For the reasons stated above, the court dismisses plaintiffs’ direct claims: the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the direct fiduciary duty and direct implied-in-fact contract claims, and plaintiffs lack standing to pursue any of their direct claims. Further, the court declines to dismiss plaintiffs’ derivative claims. The court therefore GRANTS IN PART defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to the claims plaintiffs label as direct (counts I, IV, VII, and X), and DENIES IN PART the motion with respect to the derivative claims (counts II, III, V, VI, VIII, IX, XI, XII). By no later than Friday, January 10, 2020, the parties shall file a joint status report proposing further proceedings and, if appropriate, a schedule for such proceedings. The court has filed this ruling under seal. The parties shall confer to determine proposed redactions to which all the parties agree. Then, by no later than Monday, December 16, 2019, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating their agreement with the proposed redactions, attaching a copy of those pages of the court’s ruling containing proposed redactions, with all proposed redactions clearly indicated."