I doubt it just a coincidence that the substitution order is dated Feb 12th, the exact same day as the Case Management Conference.

The order was probably proposed to the court on the 12th, and the judge was able to get input from both Barco and TPL at that time.

The fact that the order is effective/signed on Feb 12th means that the judge saw absolutely no reason not to sign it immediately. While reason existed to delay release of the order, there apparently was no reason not to OK it without any review or consideration.

What does that say?

Obviously there was a settlement, or the judge no way would immediately approve the subtitution. But why the delay? I suggest the settlement was agreement by Barco to choose between door #1, door #2 or door #3. Three different structured settlements. Judge knows it is settled, but Barco needs to come back with which settlement terms. Hence, the judge withholds releasing substitution order until he has confirmation that one of the settlement doors was in fact chosen.

I think we were at that point yesterday, and I suspect both sides are trying to agree on language for the pr right now.

Of course if the 12th is not indeed the effective date of the substitution order then all the above is meaningless. But if it is the 12th, then I think it fits nicely.

Opty