Scott,
I appreciate your confidence, however misplaced it might be!
The WT legal strategy is to continue with the appeal. The impact of today's ruling is that the WT will be forced to spend another $86K/annum to pay the bond premiums. The appeal is likely to take about two years, so they will spend $172K on bond premium for this appeal.
This increases the pressure on the WT to settle the case (i.e., offer her something less than the judgment, but a large enough amount to satisfy her and Mr. Simons), as they will have to pay $172K in bond premiums that, if the WTBTS is successful, they will be unlikely to be able to collect from Conti. She could file bankruptcy and I believe that this sort of debt would likely be subject to being discharged in bankruptcy.
As for this ruling against the WTBTS, the WTBTS is pretty much without any realistic options to reverse it. They are not entitled to appeal the ruling, as it is not an appealable order. They can file for relief via something called a "writ of mandamus," which is similar to an appeal as it is decided by a higher court, but even if the facts and the law were on their side, they'd have less than a 10% chance of success with a writ. I give them zero chance, because the law was not at all on their side in this motion. Also, seeking writ relief is incredibly expensive; especially given the big law firm representing the WTBTS.
There are deadlines for seeking the relief, but I don't know that it matters. The real deadline was the bond premium deadline, which I think will become due and payable in the next couple of weeks, based on my recollection of what I read in the moving papers. I would have to do research to determine the deadlines, but it wouldn't be worth my time. I'm confident that the WTBTS will not be seeking a writ on this.
As I said above, I think the WTBTS will be trying to settle with Conti. The only question is how much are they willing to offer to make this go away? If they do settle, they will insist on confidentiality provisions that will prevent Conti or her lawyers from disclosing any details of the deal.
