Lots of variables for sure, but some "signs" that would tell us where this goes (if we knew the answers):
(1) Who initiated the request for a halt?
Can't be mutual - somebody had to be the first to suggest it.
(2) Andrews had to hear what the parties were going to discuss - $1 billion now and $1 billion later (payout dates TBD).
Cox to pay $X, something close to what UOIP is asking for.
(3) Two weeks was determined by what the parties believed would be the time needed to get it done. Andrews could have easily added to or reduced that, but since two weeks is IMO not a lot of time, Andrews had to believe the deal was closer rather than not.
In my VERY LIMITED experience (certainly not in cases of this $$$$ magnitude), cases with this much pre-trial action (motion upon motion, delays, etc) aren't halted based on "maybe" or "we're close". Judges love nothing more than to clear calendars.
It's great IMO to have a big dog (Cox) in the room, because Cox can speak and the rest will follow. No majority needed, not even a consensus. If Cox acts, they all will eventually.
So based on this cloudy and unscientific analysis, I see a deal.
One last thing - Most of my reasoning is based on my belief that Andrews would not allow and UOIP lawyers would not agree to this halt if things were not just about "there". Unimaginable for me to think otherwise. Thanks.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
