I agree that PTSC hasn't always used the tightest language in its PRs, but there has also been a tendency to read too much into portions of them, and/or to take words and phrases out of context. With a little time, I'm sure I could think of quite a few, but one of the classics was the "business resolution" --- several members here insisted that such must mean something different than a mere "settlement", when, in fact, common legal usage of "business resolution" simply means a resolution that wasn't reached by having been litigated to judgment. In other words, there is a "business resolution", which is one way to describe a settlement, as opposed to a "litigation resoution", which is a judgment rendered by the court.
While I can certainly see the distinction you have made in your post and applaud your attention to detail, the scenario would not make sense in practical application. Not only have some of the terms of the settlement already been announced (payment of certain funds, greater oversight, "mutual releases", and so forth), but it would be illogical, not to mention dangerous, to dismiss an appeal if in fact a settlement had not actually been reached.
I suppose it is theoretically possible (and I'm talking the .0000001% type of stuff here) that an appeal based solely on the issue of arbitration could be dismissed on the basis that the parties had reached an agreement that arbitration either was, or was not, applicable. Not only have I never seen such a thing done, however, but furthermore, in such an event in this particular case, we would have seen much different content in the PR and the Q.
Best wishes to you and all.
