MovieChat Forums > Michael Clayton (2007) Discussion > The U-North settlement -- why didn't it ...

The U-North settlement -- why didn't it happen anyway?

posted 5 years ago by mobocracy (908)
4 replies | jump to latest

I've watched this movie about 5-6 times, it's one of my favorite films and I think the acting is just superb.

One thing that I hadn't thought of is why U-North didn't settle the case? At the end of the movie Tilda Swinton's character tells the board that the write-off for the settlement basically pays for itself.

Given that Swinton knows that the firm's culpability is nearly unlimited if they get exposed, why screw around with endless lawsuits? Marty Bach would have bled them for years on this thing, and the longer it went on the greater the risk of some kind of exposure.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

Because the plot required it. And the movie would have been maybe 15 minutes long.

[–] dirkdiggler (118) 5 years ago

If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, why say anything at all?

[–] kwestmo (4385) 3 years ago

Then you answer the question

[–] riraho (144) a year ago

They didn't settle the case at first because it didn't make financial sense. No one outside of the executives knew or could prove, until the end of the movie, that they were culpable. Tilda Swinton's character explains in the meeting at the end that the plaintiff's side was nearing a point of no return in legal fees and they were motivated to settle for a lesser amount.