Why would the Supreme Court hear this? Is there anything novel about this case? I haven't read all the filings, but I'm just not aware of something unusual / precedent setting here.

It would be stunning if it's each party's responsibility to make sure that the other has absolutely no misconceptions in a settlement, and as far as I can tell, that's really the only question on the table, right?

The winklevoss twins would be better off suing counsel for not doing due diligence on the cap table, I'd guess. I suppose counsel doesn't have billions floating around, though.