Originally posted by Robtard
That isn't correct. Corporations settle outside of court even when they know they can win, if the agreed upon amount of the settlement is less than what the legal bean counters estimate it would cost to go to court and win. It's a numbers game. eg If Sandmann agreed to say $50k and it would cost AT&T $200,000 to fight in court and win, they settle and do NDAs as it's cheaper and easier and no one will care come the following week.Not saying this explicitly happened here, maybe they settled because the win-to-loss ratio was not as favorable as they'd want, but we don't know since they signed NDAs.
Settling outside of court = not having to document the case, publicly.
Pretty sure all of us are aware of why they would settle outside of court. Everyone knows that it was to save them as much face as possible. The subpoena's would leave their organizations in shambles if they came to light. Probably could lead to criminal investigations. That's a very risky situation.
The fact that they settled outside of court speaks volumes. Screams volumes, actually. Settling outside of court was always going to be the first option. The fact that one judge threw out the case, initially, was telling of absurd corruption taking place. I pointed that out at the time, as well.
Like I said, Lawyermon to the rescue. 😄