By "This", I mean the stay.

My first thought was that Ward needed more time to consider the ACP issue (though to me it's a no-brainer), and couldn't just say "hold on a minute" before the Nov 1 dispositions were scheduled, so he advised the parties and had them file the motion for the stay.  The problem with this theory is the 30 days - why 30 days?  One would think a week or two max would be enough.

Of course, the next thought was that a settlement is in the works (like as if it never was), but on prior such occasions, the motion included language indicating that such was the case.

In thinking this through, it does seem to be very strange timing considering the ACP issue was hanging.  Could it be that the Judge ruled and informally advised the parties? (or formally, but under wraps?).  I solidly believe that a ruling on ACP would be the catalyst for earnest settlement action.  But why keep it informal/under wraps?  Could the "saving face" concern be part of it? (i.e., ACP was the Js last real hope/prayer - losing that issue equals defeat and loss of face?).  I do think something happened here, and that it was the catalyst.  What does cause a small degree of concern is if Ward did indeed rule, but in favor of the defendants (i.e., then OUR TEAM would be more incentivized to settle).

While I am compelled to believe that this is all about settlement, it all just seems very strange.  From a strategy standpoint, it seems our team would be more interested in seeing a public ruling on ACP to kill (more) that issue from raising its head in the future, thus enabling a MSJ (and all the good things that could fall from that - settlements AND a probable ruling completely substantiating the MMP).

At this point I'm thinking that Ward indeed tipped his hand to the parties (re: ACP), and that prompted this action.  And yes, as some have suggested, the Philips license may have been a big clue - and a clue suggesting that Ward has ruled in our favor re: ACP (possibly even last week).

And BTW, if what I'm thinking is true, it ain't S&L selling - it's the flippers/momentum traders.

But I KNOW absoluely NUTTIN'!

Except this does bode well for settlements, and that's...

Ex-cell-ent!  (Where's Mr. Burns when I need him?!). 

SGE