- Legal firms are fighting over how to share the settlement fees from the Tezos saga
- The six law firms are to distribute $8.3M in attorney’s fees from the $25M settlement
- The $25 million settlement with Tezos was approved in September
Tezos News Today – recall that the class action suit against Tezos over its 2017 ICO ended last month after the firm reached a $25 million settlement. The firm reportedly distributed unregistered securities during its 2017 initial coin offering.
Now, the next phase is the distribution of attorney fees. Negotiations between the six legal firms who handled the matter is on the way. The firms are supposed to share the $8.3 million in fees awarded from the $25 million class-action settlement. According to reports, the lawyers representing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Block & Leviton LLP (B&L) claim that the issue has descended into unseemly mudslinging.
How the Attorney Fees Saga Began
On October 7, the two law firms (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Block & Leviton LLP (B&L)) requested that the U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denies a motion for attorney fees filed by Hung G. Ta Esq. PLLC (HGT), the Restis Law Firm PC, LTL Attorneys LLP, and Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC in September.
The motion proposed by the two firms sought an order that compels Block & Leviton to return the funds it “unilaterally” distributed to itself and other firms. The order also categorized the firm’s actions as “brazen misconduct.” According to HGT, the distribution by B&L would allocate about 25% of the total attorney fees to itself, and another 50% to Robbins Geller (the firm that was originally involved with the class action suit but not documented in the matter).
HGT Didn’t Propose Different Fee Allocation the Attorney Fees were Awarded
But the attorneys representing the Block group have described HGT’s motion as devoted to unseemly mudslinging, unfounded claims of violations, and inaccurate accusations of deceit for the rules of professional conduct. They claim that HGT Law group knew about the fee distribution since December last year. Here is their response:
“HGT did not propose a different fee allocation. Not until after the fees were awarded. Next, it sat on its hands until B&L attempted to distribute the funds. None of the reckless charges will survive scrutiny.”
Finally, B&L also claims that it is willing to resolve the issue through informal discussions. It could also resort to formal dispute resolution mechanisms in the event that HGT withdraws their motion with no prejudice.