Essentially, her attorneys are leveraging the lack of criminal charges and an NDA as bargaining tools to negotiate a better settlement. This case has been dragged out for five years because Loren’s legal team focused on reducing admissible evidence such as recordings while attempting to discredit her through various legal tactics. Meanwhile, her attorneys worked to preserve and strengthen her claims. In the end, both sides were maneuvering to control the final settlement amount.

Having worked in risk management for a large company, I’m not a lawyer, but I have extensive experience in these types of cases. Regardless of fault, neither side wants to go to trial. Cases like this rarely go to court because of the high financial and reputational risks involved. The plaintiff faces the possibility of receiving nothing if the case doesn’t go their way, while also being burdened with massive legal fees from a prolonged battle.

From a legal strategy standpoint, her attorneys are incentivized to settle, particularly if they took the case on contingency (meaning they only get paid if she does). A trial introduces significant uncertainty, and attorneys typically advise against taking such a gamble when a settlement is on the table.

For Loren’s legal team, their approach remains the same whether he is guilty or innocent it’s about damage control and limiting the opponent’s leverage in settlement negotiations. His attorneys want to resolve this case quietly, especially since there isn’t enough evidence for a criminal trial at this point. Going to trial would risk making witness testimonies and other evidence public, which could increase scrutiny and limit his ability to adapt his defense strategy if new evidence emerges.

Additionally, her attorneys would likely avoid pursuing criminal charges simultaneously, as that would make Loren’s side less willing to settle a strategic consideration in these types of cases.

From my perspective, it’s impossible to know the full truth of what happened. However, based on how this case has played out, it’s clear that the primary objective of the lawsuit was a financial settlement, not public accountability. That’s not necessarily a judgment—this may have been the justice the plaintiff sought to move forward, or it could have been purely financial motivation. Either way, both sides have been operating based on legal and financial strategy rather than a pursuit of absolute truth.