Why would a plaintiff settle for less after winning a case?
<p>In the news right now is <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/11/02/gawker-media-close-to-reaching-settlement-with-hulk-hogan/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hulk Hogan settling with Gawker</a> for $31 million. This is a significant drop from the original $140 million judgement. What motivations would Hogan have for accepting this settlement? Why wouldn't he just demand the full amount?</p>

<p>My first guess was that Gawker may just not be able to pay the $140 million, but even in that case wouldn't Hogan still get the $31 million that Gawker is able to pay?</p>

<p>Because of the appeals process. By settling now he:</p>

<ol>
<li>Gets the money now rather than in 2-3 years when the appeal finishes</li>
<li>Gets $31 million rather than whatever the appeals court decides (which may be considerably less)</li>
</ol>

<p>Sometimes it's better to take a lesser amount than the judgment because the defendant can potentially declare bankruptcy and leave you with little or nothing, since you would not necessarily be the first in line to collect from liquidation of the defendant's assets.</p>

<p>There are two parts to getting money in a civil court case: (a) you must win the case. (b) you must force the other party to hand over the money. </p>

<p>If you won the case, but you think part (b) is difficult (like getting $140 million from someone who hasn't got it is a problem), then you take what you can get. </p>

united-states civil-law settlement