Most cases don't have the political issue the PL has here - optically difficult for them to settle without City accepting wrongdoing which City are naturally reluctant to do. The parties really should have found a way to settle before the charges but likely too late now.
Agreed. This nails it IMO.
I was involved in a very similar case in this regard (allegations of fraud dating back many years, huge financial and reputational risks, high costs, non-financial drivers for both parties). It did settle but I think the key difference there was that there was more middle ground that would satisfy both parties. (I think settling was absolutely the right thing to do in that case, FWIW.)
Here, it's hard to see how City can settle on any aspect other than non cooperation, even if the settlement was relatively minor. A 6 point penalty and fine, for example, is small beer compared to what will happen if we lose on the key issues in front of the IC. But the reputational damage of those terms, and the long standing taint it would leave on past and future achievements, is so bad that I can't see City accepting that unless our substantive case was really shaky (even if on a purely probabilistic view it would be the correct thing to do).
And the PL have kind of the same problem in reverse. It's worse for them to settle just on cooperation, say, and take the substantive charges off the table, than it is to go to the IC and lose badly, getting criticised and stung for costs, because EVEN IF the substantive case for the PL is really weak, the perception will (quite wrongly) be that they caved. This is actually a common problem for regulatory bodies like the SFO, HMRC, FCA etc. Although those bodies - well certainly HMRC - have much better governance frameworks for taking these decisions than the PL seems to.
Masters is and has been in a difficult spot here but it does seem like he hasn't been up to the task, I would say.
