She ruled against the company's request to remove footnote 15. Obviously no one (Company, APA, or USAPA) plans to follow the path contemplated in that footnote, which is hopelessly factually and legally inaccurate. She seems to realize she's left behind a confusing mess and seems to almost relish in it. Leaving the company in the awkward position of having to basically ignore certain statements and footnotes while embracing other parts. How can you claim part of the "dicta" is binding, and other parts are not?

The only thing that I can say for sure after this is that there is more legal maneuvering to come.