Now it's just semantics. Denying the current settlement would inevitably result in a larger settlement, unless everyone appealing to the courts is saying that the $125 repayment is too much.
How is this just semantics? If they have to do things over, they might just reach a different settlement than paying individual people $X. Or heck, there's always a chance they won't agree and will have to battle it out in court. Or maybe something else that I can't think of. It might be likely that they'd come up with a better payment, but it seems far inevitable to me.
