I do. I don't have a crystal ball or any insider information but I believe the stakes are higher for a corporation than for the plaintiff because defeating an

I do. I don't have a crystal ball or any insider information but I believe the stakes are higher for a corporation than for the plaintiff because defeating an assault could send a message to other potential claimants. (Think runaway juror) I don't know how much weight you'll give to some study but for What it is worth, here's a semi related article http://nytimes.com/2008/08/08/business/08law.html http://nytimes.com/2008/08/08/business/08law.html https://archive.fo/rTQIF https://archive.fo/rTQIF Of course, the defense knows this and this unwillingness to go to trial factors in when talking about exact dollars and cents of a settlement. At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter because I imagine most of the share holders of Wells Fargo are not in on any deal like this and arguably are the victim here more than the customers or the employees of Wells Fargo. I feel the same way when some city pays to settle a case brought up against a city employee's actions. Cases like this are a net loss to the society because likely nothing will change for the better. The cost of getting caught just gets factored into the cost of doing business. Sorry if I sound ambivalent or worse cynical. It is because I'm trying to tell myself that I'm wrong and things will change for the better if this woman wins her lawsuit against Wells Fargo. However, I know that this John Stumpf fellow will be back as either a consultant or a board member within a year. He didn't lose anything. Others have little incentive not to follow his lead.