High/low agreements are attractive and useful for both plaintiffs and defendants. When entering into a high/low agreement, the defendant is protected from excessive judgment and compensation is guaranteed to the applicant. Before the judgment expires, it is important for both parties to assess their case and consider the possibility of reaching a high/low agreement. High/low agreements can also be used when introducing arbitration proceedings in order to keep court costs low. Regardless of the forum, top/bottom agreements should be considered when damages are significant and liability is uncertain. The high-low-sttlement agreement looks like a typical transaction agreement with some additional features. The theory behind the agreement is that the plaintiff and the defendant insure the other against excessive judgment. The plaintiff and the defendant agree that the outcome of the proceedings will be no less than X dollar (the lowest) and no more than Y dollars (the top). If the sentence is pronounced in favour of the complainant and exceeds the Y dollar, the complainant receives Y dollars. If the sentence is pronounced in favor of the defendant and is less than X dollar, the plaintiff receives X dollar. If there are several applicants and/or defendants, it is important to indicate, in the terms of the high-low, to whom it applies and how to determine the judgment in case of joint and several liability.
The Virginia Code, Section 8.01-35.1, deals with the effect of an exemption or obligation not to bring a legal action given to “one in two or more persons responsible for the same violation of an unlawful act.” Goes. Code 8.01-35.1 (A). The Code expressly provides that these agreements contain high-level and low-level agreements. Under the law, high-low does not alleviate other non-infringements, but any amount allocated to other infringements is reduced by the consideration granted for the agreement. Therefore, in a high-level agreement, the parties cannot limit the amount of compensation to other unlawful acts, as this would deprive them of the rights conferred by law. Combining these two predictions, the authors rank four categories of cases on the likelihood that they will involve high-to-low-level discussions and agreements, ranging from most likely to the least likely: (1) cases with low-expected trial costs and high anticipated variability of outcomes (LC-HV), (2) cases with low expected procedural costs and low variation in expected outcomes (LC-LV) or high probability of n Procedural costs and expected result rates (HC-HV), and finally (3) cases where trial costs are expected and there is little variation in expected results (HC-LV). The Illinois Supreme Court describes a typical credit receipt agreement as follows: During the trial, both parties struck a high-price agreement with a high of $1,000,000.00 and a low of $300,000.00. When the high-level agreement was included in the registration, none of the parties mentioned R.4:58 and did not explicitly waive or retain any rights in accordance with the rule.
The jury eventually awarded $6,000,000 for Serico. The court then issued a verdict in the amount of USD 1,000,000.00 on the basis of the high-priced deal. After the judgment, the applicant claimed legal costs, including lawyers` fees, in accordance with Rule 4:58. The Trial Court rejected the applicant`s request with a personalised and usage analysis. . . .