X discovers that he has a valuable cause of action against Z, and decides to use it as leverage against Z, but it isn't quite enough leverage to counter Z in the way X would like. However, he realises that his discovery would also be relevant to Y, who would be equally eligible to pursue the cause of action against Z.
In negotiation with Z, X tries to get leverage by offering to waive his own right to pursue that action against Z, in consideration of Z dropping their own claim against X. But Z's claim against X is worth double X's claim against Z, so it isn't rational for Z to trade them.
X realises that Z really wouldn't want X to alert Y to the possibility of their claim against Z, though, and if Z could be just have some assurance that X will not share their finding with X, that is worth just as much to Z as X waiving their right to pursue the action (ie, settling the matter with Z).
Z accepts this deal, and they settle on the basis that X has waived his right to pursue his claim against Z, and he will further refrain from informing Z about Z's own eligibility to pursue the claim.
To what extent, legally, and then realistically/consequentially, is this actually meaningful? Realistically, Z might have a 10% chance of discovering the claim on their own, and if they do pursue it, it would be pretty overwhelmingly likely that it was the work of X's advice. But of course X could never have a right to settle a cause of action on Y's behalf. So what implications would X's agreement with Z have on Y's deciding to issue their claim (which the fact remains is perfectly valid). It seems like everyone would be pretty confident that X had broken their agreement with Z, although nobody could strictly prove this. So is it basically just completely inconsequential, both in theory and in practice?
