By saying that he's "the bad guy" I did sort of imply that there is malicious intent on his side even though that may indeed not be the case. Perhaps he did not

By saying that he's "the bad guy" I did sort of imply that there is malicious intent on his side even though that may indeed not be the case. Perhaps he did not deliberately name the company he worked for in the OP to gain extra leverage, and perhaps he did not deliberately play the victim card and perhaps he really feels he deserves to get $12.8 million for his contributions. Perhaps. And for what it's worth, I think he should get some compensation for his contributions and that the counteroffer of $0 is unreasonable as well, for the reasons given by other people.