In an order analysts are taking as a positive sign, U.S.District Court Judge John Gleeson has opted for an early date forhearing arguments from both opponents and proponents of a proposedsettlement to the longstanding card interchange case.

If approved by the court, the proposed settlement, years in the making, will see $7.25billion eventually move from the card brands and major card issuersinto the coffers of participating retailers as well as giveretailers the right to levy a surcharge on card transactions.

And the settlement has been controversial for some time asretailers expressed dissatisfaction with it.

Gleeson, who sits on the bench for the Eastern District of NewYork, wrote in Thursday's order that he was aware of the objectionsand would consider them, but that he also believed the proposedsettlement would move to preliminary approval.

“I understand from both filings in the case and the considerablemedia coverage of

the proposed settlement that there are objections to theproposal, and I assume there will be more such objections in thefuture,” Gleeson wrote.

“As in every case, those objections deserve, and will get,careful consideration by the Court. I am mindful, however, that thethreshold for preliminary approval of a proposed class actionsettlement is meaningfully lower than the threshold for finalapproval,” he wrote. “Preliminary approval is appropriate where theproposal appears to be the product of serious negotiation andfurther appears to be within the range of possible finalapproval.”

Gleeson set the date for oral arguments for and against theproposed settlement for Nov. 9 and asked for written arguments byOct. 31.

He also denied requests to establish a proposed objectorscommittee and grant it limited rights of discovery.

“I see no need to form an Objectors' Committee or to arrange forthe discovery requested. The parties seeking that relief have agreat deal of sophistication and familiarity with both the terms ofthe Settlement Agreement and the course of the negotiations thatculminated in that agreement,” he wrote.

Analysts interpreted Gleeson's order as both a signal ofconfidence in the proposed settlement and a limit to the amount ofobjection he would allow into the procedure.

“While we believe preliminary approval of the proposedsettlement is a high-probability event, we view Judge Gleeson'scomments as a modest positive as he seems favorably disposed to thesettlement parameters,” wrote analysts at financial research firmKeefe, Bruyette and Woods said in a small analytical note about theorder. “Additionally, the timeline for response to formalsubmission of the settlement appears to have been accelerated withoral argument to occur on Nov. 9, which is earlier than theback-and-forth process we expected to unfold over the next roughly60 days. While this acceleration of the timeline could suggest aquicker process towards resolution of the settlement, we note thatthe process is dynamic and subject to change.”