You say:

"You now seem to be hung up on the MOU for your stance. Couldn't it have even been as simple as "these are the terms of the settlement...contingent on the J's BOD's signing off?"

First of all, I'm not "hung up" on the MOU. I'm hung up on supposed authoritities in such things suggesting goofy things like you did above (go to end of this post). And it so happens that the MOU is the ONLY item for which I pleaded an explanation and actually got one, indirectly, from these guys. Unfortunately, IMO, their explanation is extremely lame, and I explain why. I await a response from the "all knowing".

And to answer your question, yes, it could have been, but WHY? In other words, the court certainly didn't need for the litigants to prepare a document for that purpose. EVERY settlement would have such terms, or it wouldn't be a settlement, would it? The Judge would simply stipulate that the litigants must do certain respective things to consummate the settlement - and it would have the full force of the court behind it. Failure to perform as stipulated would result in the wrath of the Judge, and rightfully so. To make this perfectly clear - no way was an MOU required, necessary, appropriate or desireable to accomplish what Brian and Ron suggest.

But Ron indirectly acknowledged that an MOU is intended for use in "what if" future situations - contingency planning. Unfortunately, the only contingency Ron (and Brian, apparently) can see was the Js not paying or us not filing for dismissal. Something, again, for which an MOU is not needed because it would very likely (definitely?) be stipulated by the court. Besides this, the purpose Ron describes suggests more an agreement (and he used THAT word) about payment terms and our team processing necessary paper (an exchange of effort/product for consideration). That would be an MOA, not an MOU, and it would be a formal contract - an MOU is NOT a contract.

The interesting thing in this situation is that, though it is an MOU, it is apparently backed by the court as a condition of settlement. This makes it as close to being an actual contract as an MOU can be IMO (i.e., with a contract, if a party fails to perform, the ultimate remedy is to take them - guess where? - to court!). Thinking it through, an MOU backed by the court is the most prudent way of handling a contingency situation with teeth, because you don't prepare a contract in any form for a "what if this happens" situation (other than an insurance policy).

So they attempt argument on one of 20+ things, and fail miserably IMO. And in doing so, open that "contingency window" by indirectly acknowledging that THAT is the customary purpose for an MOU (as I've been saying all along).

So if the MOU is for contingency planning, and not for the ridiculous contingency they insist, what is the contingency? Maybe they can suggest other contingencies than this first attempt. I'm all ears! And THAT is precisely the input I seek.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid they've somewhat "painted themselves into a corner", as offering any alternative now would make Brian not be "exactly right" about this, or possibly anything. Nothing quite like closing the door to discussion.....

JMHOs, and I'm more than open to sensible discussion. Convince me I'm wrong, and I too can move on, happily acknowledging any real error in my reasoning. The funny thing is, it wouldn't take all that much, probably. It's just that nothing pops into my mind to defeat this. Or many of the other 20-some-odd conjecture clues/basis. And that's my "problem". IMO, it's not just one or two sensible clues, but a whole bunch of them. And I acknowledge that they may all be totally meaningless.

It's conjecture - admittedly delusional conjecture.

SGE

Why "goofy"? In situations such as this (and in contract negotiations), the parties are obligated to have someone there having delegated authority to sign off. If not, they may be susceptible to an accusation of "not negotiating in good faith".