Ya, I just am not familiar enough with the issue to know if 1.92 billion was appropriate or not relative to the damage of any other wide scale settlement. How

Ya, I just am not familiar enough with the issue to know if 1.92 billion was appropriate or not relative to the damage of any other wide scale settlement. How about the $200 billion tobacco settlement as a baseline? Were HSBC's damages 1% what was settled in the tobacco case in 1998? Disclaimer: I'm an outsider to the legal profession, so pardon me if it's a silly comparison.