(Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Brief at 12). AFTC has not indicated the precise expense that it believes GFIA should have shouldered, or cited case law on the issue. AFTC’s claim regarding legal fees is unpersuasive. The three A & M companies and GFIA were jointly represented by Greenberg Traurig regarding both the PSA, to which all four entities were signatories, and the PSA Action, in which all four entities were co-plaintiffs. The A & M companies and GFIA each benefited from that joint representation, and AFTC has not disputed that Greenberg Traurig’s rates were reasonable. In such circumstances, parties are not required to divide legal expenses equally; one party may pay all legal fees for joint representation and still receive fair consideration in return. See Frank, 48 F.3d at 639 (<HOLDING>). AFTC has thus failed to establish that the A
holding that where codefendants conducted a joint defense that provided a benefit to each defendant the joint services represented fair consideration for the payment of reasonable compensation regardless of which defendant paid the bill recognizing ability of one or more joint tortfeasors to settle on behalf of themselves and another joint tortfeasor and then pursue that joint tortfeasor for its share of the settlement payment holding that the rights conferred to a joint account holder by massachusetts statutes and case law in fact give a joint account holder legal title in a joint account holding that childrens book for which plaintiff provided the text and defendant provided the illustrated photographs was a joint work in which each party owned an undivided ownership and thus neither could be held liable to the other for copyright infringement holding in a class action derivative suit that the joint defense privilege cannot be waived without the consent of all the parties to the defense except in the situation where one of the joint defendants becomes an adverse party in a litigation