If you are mad, and you feel like they have impeded your ability to get re-hired or funded at a later date, then you are more inclined to take some of these actions. If they say, "Look you have to go, but we'll make it comfortable for you and we'll just call it a day." then you might feel more charitable to them and forego starting processes that will cause them pain.
A technique I was told was used on an executive at Sun was to give them a stock grant that would only be "vested" in 5 years. The purpose was to keep it in that person's best interest to insure the Company was not damaged in order to reap the maximum reward down the line. To be clear, they got the stock in 5 years no matter what, it was just in their interest to have it be worth as much as possible at that time.
* They have more money to spend on lawyers.
* They expected windfall from the lawsuit is higher, so law firms would be more inclined to accept the case and spend more resources on it.
* At lower levels, people are given boilerplate contracts written by company lawyers and told to take it or leave it. Apart from things like remuneration, nothing is up for negotiation. These contracts often heavily favour the company and make lawsuits difficult. At higher levels, contracts are genuinely negotiated between the lawyers for both sides.
* It is unlikely that a director could create or move to another company and start successfully poaching their former colleagues. A VP or higher level executive probably could.
This would be kind of like saying iOS was a successful fork of Android, it just doesn't make sense because they really are not the same. One runs native apps, the other runs a JVM. The only similarity is that they are both mobile OSs running Linux.