10:29, it settled. The ambiguity comes from the usual journalistic inability to accurately report about judicial proceedings.

The article clearly says:

"Dance star Michael Flatley has won an $11 million settlement in the United States... The 49-year-old dancer said he was offered the settlement at a hearing Friday at California Supreme Court."

Even those details are confusing - did they settle prior to the hearing on someone's appeal to the California Supremes? Do the California Supremes have mandatory pre-hearing mediation?

10:57, the headline also says that he "won" the case. And in his statement (which I hope was reviewed by his attorney), Flatley said, "I am very pleased with the judgment awarded to me."

I agree it's ambiguous and confusing. I chalk it up to bad reporting.

Maybe the defendant offered to have judgment taken out against her in the amount of $11 million? I mean, how does a real estate agent have liquid assets in that amount available to her? Maybe she was a very successful realtor - but I kind of doubt it.

He wont see a dime. If she was desperate enough to try to extort him, she doesn't have $11 million dollars in cash lying around.

http://www.ajc.com/shared-gen/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Missing_Attorney.html?cxntlid=inform

The Ohio-Atlanta "abduction" was not real.