2112- we have a significant disagreement on how this works.
I am quite confident that IF the IDCC/Ericy settlement was tied to the vacatur then the vacatur would have been made permanent and not subject to reinstatement.
I do agree with JimL that this issue is getting pretty old, it has been pretty thoroughly discussed here, Judge Lynn has ruled on it, and the Court of Appeal is reviewing this and other significant issues now, so I would be happy to drop this discussion.
However, the scenario you are suggesting seems to be fundamentally incorrect, so I felt compelled to reply so as to hopefully prevent any misunderstanding about the vacatur possibly upsetting the settlement if they were tied, since this is just NOT how it works based on my reading of the briefs, particularly Nok's Motion to Reinstate, which you may like to read or revisit.
With all due respect and sincerity, can you direct me to any reference in support of your scenario?
MO,
Corp_Buyer
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
