Ann: Financial Review apology to N J (John) Karantzis, page-76

@Gold Bugs Bunny It is not a vacuous question at all as it is readily answered. The deal was taken because the certainty offered in the agreed deal was considered a probabilistically better outcome than the uncertainty of proceeding to trial. Call it risk adjusted returns. But you are right in the sense that it gives us little information to debate meaningfully.

We are in a vacuum due to the confidential nature of the agreement and which is why I asked whether it is a breach of confidentiality to disclose which side requested the confidentiality clause. That info would be quite telling in terms of understanding whether this is a big win for the CEO or a Pyrrhic victory or something in between.

Of course "quite telling" is different to "definitive" Many permutations to consider here.