Ranger-
Re:
[Corp makes statements like, "rather than effecting settlements REGARDLESS of the court's actions as was done in the IDCC/E settlement and vacatur", and was proven wrong.]
Actually, since Nok and Judge Lynn are the prevailing opinions on this issue at the moment, I am currently PROVEN RIGHT on this issue, as things stand now.
Realize that Nok's entire argument and the Bancorp citation refer to IDCC having made the settlement separate from the request for vacatur to Judge Lynn and she also sees it this way. So, please refrain from saying I was "proven wrong" when I am actually reflecting the current ruling by the Court on this point.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Judge also found that her initial ruling to vacate the PSJs was a legal error on her part, since IDCC's request for vacatur, upon further reflection, did not meet the legal standards for vacatur.
Thus, there is an even more confusing scenario possible if the Court of Appeal deems that the settlement was in fact, contrary to Judge Lynn's analysis, linked to the vacatur, however the Court also deems that the vacatur was legally improper. Then what? While this scenario is possible, I doubt very much that the Court of Appeal will get into this puzzle and if they do, I expect they will not upset the settlement, even if that means leaving the PSJs improperly vacated.
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
