madcorgi

This was a judge's ruling, not a settlement. It's a big deal, not because of the amount, but because of the public nuisance finding, which opens the door to a lot of similar litigation.

What people often don't appreciate about judgments like this is that they are only the tip of the iceberg as to what costs the company will actually incur. They have already spent a fortune on fees, and will continue to do so as the case progresses. If any portion of their costs have been paid by insurance, that will go sky high. Disruption to the normal course of business is horrendously expensive, as is taking actions to ensure no further liability, assess liability in other states, create remediation planes, etc. Employee morale and productivity suffers, as does reputation, the ability to hire new employees, etc. These costs, while hard to quantify, exact a huge toll n cases like this.

Since both sides are unhappy with the judgment, it's possible they will both appeal (called a cross-appeal), but I suspect they are already in talks to settle, which can be done at ay time in the process. Oklahoma likes the precedent, and does not want to see it overturned on appeal. J&J hates the precedent, and does not want to risk having it affirmed by the higher court. A settlement removes that possibility.