This is tricky to follow, but I guess that's why they have lawyers. In the transcript of the April 8 oral settlement, page 4 line 4, Johnson refers to "the releases that will be included." Mercer responds, "OK." So it looks, on the surface, as if Mercer was, at that point, also anticipating additional releases. The parties on each side are called out, including Mercer's inclusion of Aero News Network (mispelled "Arrow" in the transcript, but neither Campbell nor Mercer would have known that till it appeared in writing) in the "party of the second part" at the top of page 4. At the top of page 5, Mercer notes that the second point of the settlement (the first being return of the plane) is a release of "any and all claims against each other and claims by party of the second part (Campbell, KSA, ANN) against the party of the first part, or vice versa." At the bottom of page 7, Mercer asks Campbell if, on behalf of himself, KSA and ANN, he agrees to the terms of the compromise, and Campbell replies, "Yes." After all agree, they go off the record. I haven't seen any mention in Mercer's subsequent documents or transcripts of hearings of what, specifically, he feels has changed in the written releases prepared by Johnson and Cirrus. Is there ambiguity in the verbal that would be clarified, to Cirrus's advantage, in written form?. In the transcript of the April 25 hearing, Judge Skinner tells Mercer he suspects an "ulterior motive" or "additional litigation you plan to bring as soon as this case is dismissed." Mercer seems to hint the judge is right with his reply: "And that may be appropriate if it's not governed by the stipulation." So, Cirrus digs in from the position that there is no settlement until a written, signed, notarized release binding ANN backs up the verbal settlement. Mercer holds out for leaving ANN's ability to sue intact, but complains to the court that the meter is running. And between now and June 18, Campbell needs to decide whether to further delay the trial by filing an appeal of Judge Skinner's refusal to recuse himself, and KEEP the meter running. It will be interesting to see if Campbell has the means to continue the staring contest. From a financial standpoint, he wrote, in an FAQ on the ANN site last year: That seemed to imply imminent foreclosure, but Clay County records showed he didn't own his home at Haller Airpark, so he may have been referring to needing to find lower rent. But he also may not be as far in the hole as it appears. In the same FAQ he notes he is... If Mercer is a fan of ANN, he might be in it on some kind of contingency basis, having taken the case knowing he'd have to win to collect. If that's true, perhaps we will see an appeal which delays the trial. Presumably, Cirrus has figured out it needs to see this through to either a solid, written release or a victory in court to end the litigation. But would a victory in court bind ANN from suing? Is preserving some percentage hope of that future payday enough to keep Campbell and Mercer fighting? Both sides may be motivated to settle. Campbell has spent three decades trying to live down the NTSB thing. Cirrus could have a problem if this, from the ANN Legal Fund FAQ, is accurate: If that video is around and shows what Campbell says it shows, that could be an exhibit at the trial. Also of interest financially, ANN is again trying to find a marketing person. This time, the recruitment is focused on a new edition of the SportPlane Resource Guide, which was being promoted around the time of the LSA show at Sebring in January. I have no idea how the cash flows for the directory, but if deposits are accepted from advertisers in advance, the cupboard may not be completely bare. It's fascinating to follow the documentation in this case, if only for its educational value in parsing the English language.