Actually, most of the MOUs I was involved with were while employed on the Space Shuttle program. In every one of those MOUs, there were multiple companies on at least "one side" of the arrangement. On "our side" was the Shuttle Processing Contract (SPC) Team, consisting of Lockheed Space Operations Company (my employer), Morton-Thiokol, Grumman and PanAM. Depending of the specific circumstance contemplated, there may be one or more companies on the "other side" of the MOU (most large activities would involve multiple parties due to the probable size and complexity of the contemplated event).

The MOU served as the "umbrella" document, describing the circumstances underwhich the conditions of the MOU may be invoked. It was not unusual for the multiple companies on the "other side" to have more specific attachments/exhibits to the MOU if sensitive (money issues) information needed to be "in there". Those attachments/exhibits would be referred to in the MOU with regard to actions expected of each party. Sense we were the Prime Contractor, all other parties to the MOU would typically be subcontractors (though there were occasions, I believe, where a/the party on the other side was NASA and/or the USAF).

So, we had the basic MOU with attachments/exhibits regarding each party on the other side. If any sensitive info regarding one of the companies on the other side needed to be included, that particular attachment would be withheld from the other parties on the other side to prohibit disclosure of info a company considered "sensitive". Now, this actually didn't happen very often because the actions contemplated typically were of unknown magnitude, so specific cost/pricing data was not included because it could not be effectively assessed in advance. Additionally, the prime contract was a "Cost Plus Award Fee" type contract, so any major/significant subcontracts would be handled on a cost plus basis (i.e., we didn't need specific cost data).

But, hopefully, from the above, you can see that the issues you raise (well done, BTW!) would be easily worked in the context of our situation with the Js. The MOU "umbrella" would cite the circumstances underwhich things may have to happen. The CC could be referenced in the MOU and, assuming all parties agree to that requirement, the CC would be accessible to all parties. But, any attachments regarding "sensitive issues" (e.g., what a single entity had to pay, T&Cs, etc.) would be made visible to the court, our team and only the specific party to that aspect of the "business resolution". Each entity on the "other side" would have its own attachment, invisible to the other (defendant) parties if so desired.

Keep in mind that the defendants, for the most part, were acting as a "team". IMO, it would make sense for them to handle it as described above. Now, we could go back and revisit the language of the PACERS, etc., but I believe there was only one MOU for all affected parties. But they could have used multiple MOUs (one for each) as long as the MOU itself contained the same language (with details in attachments).

Perhaps it would be helpful to consider what would have happened to close the case if it had gone to trial and we had prevailed. All the defendants would generally have to act in concert. The difference would be that no CC would be appropriate, and all the numbers for all the Js would be announced. But they would act in concert. Just as they would in the case of the MOU as described above. If one didn't want to act in concert (like when Sony and Fujitsu bailed), they could have proceeded to trial alone.

I sure hope this helps! And don't under-estimate what the paper-pushers can do to overcome seeming obsticles - we have ways! And also keep in mind that the people engaged here deal with similar situations all the time, most likely. None of this is "breaking new ground".

FWIW,

SGE