Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Cooperation, Confidentiality and Waiver: Is There a Solution?
Much has been written, in this newsletter and elsewhere, about the dilemma faced by corporations that want to cooperate with a government investigation by acceding to government “requests” for information protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, while at the same time attempting to protect the otherwise privileged information from disclosure to the litigious world at large. Recent turf battles between federal and state prosecutors and regulators have only made more difficult any attempt to resolve the tension between two perceived needs: to cooperate, and to preserve confidentiality.
A 'State of Hopeless Confusion'
The continuing, tortured development of the law gives little guidance to counsel who must advise clients about the risks in disclosing privileged information to the government. Counsel is operating in an arena in which the case law “is in a state of hopeless confusion.” In re M&L Business Machine Company, Inc. 161 B.R. 689, 696 (D. Colo. 1993). As one federal circuit court judge has noted, even where the company has entered into a confidentiality agreement with the government, the circuit courts of appeal are “deeply split” on whether a disclosure waives privilege “as to all other parties.” In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 308 (6th Cir. 2002) (Boggs, J., dissenting). “The resulting decisions cover the entire spectrum — from protection of work product in the absence of a confidentiality agreement to no protection of work product even when a disclosure was secured by a confidentiality agreement.” Saito v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 2002 WL 31657622 (Del. Ch. 2002).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?