Finally, the publication of the values of the high-down agreement, combined with the values of judgments and other information produced during the process, will provide all parties with useful information for future settlement purposes. As explained in this note, this solution can potentially solve one of the main errors in the chime process and create an already important tool in our multi-district process system. Very low agreements are defined as «comparisons in which a defendant agrees to pay the plaintiff a minimum return claim in return for the plaintiff`s agreement, to accept a maximum amount, regardless of the outcome of the trial.»  For the most part, high-level agreements are contracts between the applicants and the defendants, which aim to reduce the risk to both parties in high-risk litigation. It is difficult to predict how cases will work as soon as they are actually brought to justice, and that is something that is worrying for all parties.  It seems that the high-level agreement may be an ideal instrument to solve the problem of selective liquidation. First, it reduces the risk for any plaintiff`s bellwether to go into litigation. Bellwether the complainants open up to the possibility that they will obtain a non-responsible judgment and go with nothing. While plaintiffs can obtain a jackpot verdict, the unpredictability of jurors and court proceedings, coupled with the near-security of protracted appeals (and potentially reversed judgments) makes the trial less attractive. But with a guaranteed minimum payment, bellwether complainants can at least be assured that they will be paid something, and soon.
The reason for this is that the terms of the high-level agreement not only guarantee a minimum amount of payment, but also exclude the possibility of a claim, a delay in payment and the need for additional procedural costs. Id. at 548. Unlike the Weems applicant, the applicants voluntarily entered into a transaction agreement with the defendants that are no different in the immediate action and the settlement agreement appears to be final and in no way liable to the state courts. A comparison between a complainant and the non-different defendant is definitive enough to support removal, even if the non-different defendant has not been removed from the case. See Chohlis v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 760 F.2d 901, 903 and n. 2 (8 cir.1985).
Thus, the defendant could offer a transaction to the complainants in the best cases, provided that any transaction is confidential. The respondent would like these comparisons for two reasons. First, it would allow the accused to purchase potentially high sentences before being tried. Second, it would not provide potentially positive information to the applicants, although the applicant`s lawyers involved in the transaction retain these comparative values. These comparisons distort the informative benefits of the warrior process in favour of the defendant and potentially undermine the main purpose of the bellwether trial. End In Rowe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 658 F. Supp.
122 (E.D.Pa.1987), the Tribunal first found that a «high-level» settlement agreement in an asbestos case does not result in a final release against the non-miscellaneous defendant.