Juan E Jimenez wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion. It can also mean that the defendant
realized there was no way he was going to win because the evidence simply
didn't support his arguments, and didn't want to take a chance with a judge
who, after listening to three knowledgeable expert witnesses, might give the
plaintiff a lot more than what would be acceptable to the plaintiff in an
out-of-court settlement. The circumstances in this case seem to point to the
latter, and that's not just my opinion.

Juan,
I have no knowledge of any court cases involving CGS (and frankly don't want any
at this time), but I'd like to point out that your assertion may not be true.
You wrote:

[A legal settlement] can also mean that the defendant realized there
was no way he was going to win ... The circumstances in this case seem
to point to the latter, and that's not just my opinion.

I believe that a settlement merely means that both parties decided that it was
in their interests to settle their dispute outside the court. I am of the
opinion that this *usually* means that the plaintiff gets enough money (which
may be nowhere near the filed claim amount), and the respondent pays less than
they fear they *might* have to pay at trial (awards plus legal fees). In some
cases, the settlement amount paid by the respondent is *less* than the legal
bill from the defending firm if the case went to trial. In those cases, it may
make sense to settle even in cases where the plaintiff's cause of action is
completely without merit.

In summary, I believe it is very unwise to assume any "guilt" on the part of the
respondent if they chose to settle out-of-court on undisclosed terms.

Russell Kent