This is an interesting decision for two reasons. First, the decision awards a mootness fee for disclosures and changes to deal protection measures in a merger gone bust. Thus, the opinion is useful precedent in the post-Trulia world, where mootness fee applications are one of the two optimal methods for adjudicating disclosure claims.
Second, the Court held that an agreement not to sue on behalf of a different client as part of a settlement was an unenforceable contract because it was a violation of the attorney ethics rules. Hence, those sort of provisions should not be part of settlements.