A very good question for our legal folks.  Once JW rules on the Higgins issue, is it immediately appealable?  If not, and that's what I assume, then we go to trial with the understanding that no matter what he rules, the outcome of the trial will be appealed because of this ruling.  Hence, possibly a wasted trial.  From JW's perspective then, better to see a settlement than ruling on Higgins. If settlement is not viable, then he will rule.  Does this make sense?  Could this be why JW has not ruled yet?  Opty