They should just offer to settle at a reasonable value as if it had been just the four quarters previously agreed, but a smart decision was made to sit on the shares.
Since litigation is costly, the acceptable range for a settlement is centered around the expected outcome of a trial, plus or minus each party's cost of litigation (including opportunity cost).
In this case, "the claim is barred by the statute of limitations" implies that the expected outcome of litigation would be approximately $0. The net range for a settlement is then the 'nuisance value' of a lawsuit including any PR damage for airing the case publicly; that would be orders of magnitude below the $1bn claim.
What do you mean by this?
> Cost of litigation should be proportional to a reasonable settlement.
What you’re really saying is that attorneys’ fees should proportionate to claim size. But I don’t think that works. If I am bound and determined to take a dispute for a $3 refund all the way to the Supreme Court, why should me attorney be required to do all that work for $1 or whatever?
See one could think this is exceeding the role of the state, but this is not because these things are detrimental to trust which is required in the democratic state to facilitate economic transactions and employment contracts.
Misreading. S/quarters/years/
On the other hand this could open precedent in other cases, current and future, so it's an understandable position not to offer to settle preemptively just for a display of good faith.