The ongoing dispute between the Hooper and Gibson plaintiffs centers on the legitimacy of using transaction volume to gauge settlement amounts. The Hooper plaintiffs allege that the Gibson plaintiffs' counsel supports this methodology but are met with firm denial from the Gibson side. Additionally, the nature of interactions prior to potential consolidation of lawsuits has been misrepresented, they claim, as it was the Hooper plaintiffs who initially sought collaboration. The tension escalates with conflicting narratives about fee-sharing proposals, revealing deeper intricacies in their legal strategies and relationships.
The Hooper plaintiffs assert that transaction volume is a valid measure for determining settlements, a claim contested by the Gibson plaintiffs' counsel.
The Gibson plaintiffs dispute the characterization of their communications, stating it was the Hooper plaintiffs who initiated contact for potential collaboration.
Collection
[
|
...
]