I'll leave your first few questions to those more astute. But I will offer this - it depends on whether the Mediator is still involved or not. I suspect it's just us and the each of the Js with no court or mediator involvement.

As for signatures handling - I've spewed about this before. In contracting with the US Gov't, on more routine contracts negotiated from remote locations (i.e., not face-to-face), a FAXed signature is acceptable in most cases, immediately followed by a hard copy (overnight). In face-to-face negotiations, the negotiator is delegated authority to sign up to defined dollar and period of performance thresholds, though he/she will have the signed documents in hand to support his signature (and to give assurance to the other party that truly authorizing signatures are affixed). If negotiations exceed the defined thresholds, typically everything stops until greater thresholds are ironed out, enabling acceptance. But note that the negotiator is is typically armed and ready, so that as soon as an acceptable contract is negotiated, he can immediately accept (make the deal > CLOSE IT!). I would think things here would be handled similarly.

But ultimately it depends on just how important the contract is. Above I mentioned "routine' (implying small dollars or follow-on business with a well-known customer). On really big contracts, you want your signature authorities readily available (down the hall); not only due to the importance to the company, but also due to the need to assure the customer that the signatures applied are binding (non-authorized signatures render the contract worthless).

So, would a $100M+ contract rise to the importance to PTSC and TPL to create a situation where a deal, once struck, could be fully executed ASAP? I would think so....

But I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE