The case is in settlement negotiation. The other side has been persuaded by what happened at trial, that they have liability here. I think they decided to take these negotiations out of the jury's hands, as that could have been one unpredictable verdict based on the unusual makeup of that panel. Judge Andrews denial to stop the trial after Nettles, was the key. LT and I saw unusual activity right afterwards, and figured something was up. You dont stop a trial in the middle saying you want to settle, then negotiate in bad faith. This will get worked out, as I think our side has been willing to settle all along. It just took a game of brinkmanship at trial to move their side to seriously negotiate. My take on this.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
