Opinion ID: 2639418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: utah gen-probe litigation

Text: ¶ 3 On December 5, 1989, Bennett sued Gen-Probe and its officers and directors in United States District Court for the District of Utah (Utah Gen-Probe litigation), seeking to enjoin the purchase of Gen-Probe by a Japanese company because the proposed purchase price was allegedly inadequate. Bennett also asserted derivative claims on behalf of Gen-Probe against its officers and directors, and damage claims on behalf of a proposed class of the minority shareholders of Gen-Probe. ¶ 4 On April 18, 1990, Bennett and Jones Waldo entered into a retainer agreement in which Jones Waldo agreed to act as lead counsel in the Utah Gen-Probe litigation. The retainer agreement provided, among other things, that [w]ith the exception of decisions regarding settlement, [Jones Waldo] shall have the authority to make all decisions relating to the prosecution of [the] Lawsuit in its absolute discretion and that Clients [1] agree that [Jones Waldo] may, at its sole discretion, retain associate counsel to assist in the prosecution of Client's Causes of Action provided associate counsel is retained at [Jones Waldo's] sole expense. Furthermore, under the retainer agreement, the clients committed to fully cooperate with [Jones Waldo] in the prosecution of the lawsuit and acknowledged that [Jones Waldo's] agreement to represent Clients is contingent upon Client's active and continuous cooperation throughout the Lawsuit.