Thank you for the compliments, though I consider them undeserved (at least in this instance!).  The "money in the bank collecting interest" thing I believe is more thinking "inside the box", but something that is simply/easily overlooked in the context of recurring revenue for a business.  It's kinda funny that on our respective "home fronts", this approach would be first to come to mind - get a windfall, plop it in the bank, and live off the interest while not touching the principle.  But somehow, in the business context, the thought is lost.  Not that it would be the most efficient use of the funds, but it does make the point that with a big enough windfall, recurring revenue is just "sittin' there looking at ya".

Now, a question for any CPAs/bean-counters out there (Fut?).  Our suit in TX is a civil suit, seeking damages, right?  My understanding is that awards made via the court in a civil suit are tax-free to the damaged party.  Confirmation kindly requested!  Also, whether such tax handling applies in our circumstance (as opposed to stupidly spilling hot coffee on one's self and blaming someone else for the resultant injury).

I should probably await a reply/confirmation to the above, but here I go anyway....

IF I am correct re: tax handling of an award for damages assuming we went the whole nine yards and the award came through the court, and it would be tax free - how does this effect negotiations for a settlement?  I'm thinking that if money comes via a settlement/license (not directed by the court), that money is fully taxable (goodbye to 40%+).

With this in mind, and pointing this out in settlement/license negotiations, we SHOULD be pushing for enough money to make up the tax liability difference.  It just seems to me to be a very strong, undeniable negotiation point.  So when the Js say "settle now for this amount and avoid the risk of a loss in court or receiving court-directed damages far less than you expect", our "come back" should be "yup, we would avoid any perceived risk (which we think is minimal), but the awarded amount would be tax-free to us, netting us nearly twice the amount we would net via settlement/license".

Assuming I'm correct re: tax handling and assuming our guys are witty enough to ackowledge this and point it out as a strong negotiation point, the settlement amount COULD be mush greater than some even hope for. 

There are a couple of big "asses" in there, butt this is how I see it, and one of many negotiation points I'd kicking (thereby kicking asses/butt! LOL).

Now I await the response from someone who actually KNOWS what they are talking about re: tax handling to probably kill this whole thought process!

'Cuz I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE