Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Your company receives an allegation of serious wrongdoing involving a current board member. After an initial review and perhaps a discussion with the chair of your Audit Committee, it is agreed that the matter cannot be dismissed out of hand and should be elevated to the board of directors. After a meeting and discussion by the independent and non-conflicted directors, a decision is made to form a special committee to fully investigate the matter. That committee is formed, retains its own outside advisers, and commences its investigation. During that investigation, the committee interviews employees and reviews internal documents, taking care to maximize the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine as well. After the investigation is completed and the committee has reached its conclusions, it is now time for the committee to present its findings to the remaining directors so that appropriate steps can be taken to respond to any confirmed wrongdoing. The question then becomes how the board can discharge its fiduciary duties without waiving otherwise applicable privileges to the investigation and opening the door to discovery of investigation related materials by the government or by third party litigation adversaries.
Ryan v. Gifford
Two recent unpublished opinions issued by the Delaware Chancery Court shed some light on the analysis, and also offer a cautionary tale. In Ryan v. Gifford, Civ. Action No. 2213-CC, the court specifically addresses the privilege issue in the context of a shareholder derivative action. 2007 WL 4259557 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007) ('Ryan I'); 2008 WL 43699 (Del. Ch. Jan. 2, 2008) ('Ryan II'). In particular, the court identified several actions that may put privilege in jeopardy.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
Chief information officers still bear the brunt of cybersecurity worries at many companies. But a study by the Association of Corporate Counsel Foundation finds that chief legal officers are increasingly taking a leadership role in cybersecurity strategy.
General counsel are eager to tap the promise of generative AI. But without clear technology road maps, many legal departments are struggling to turn that interest into action.
Part Two of this two-part article examines practical steps marketers must take to succeed in this changing landscape by embracing a multichannel, AI-driven approach to their marketing and PR efforts.
When the SEC issues the next annual enforcement report for fiscal year 2025, we expect securities offering actions and investment adviser actions will almost certainly be up, and the “crypto” and “cyber” cases will almost certainly be down. Public statements by the new SEC administration have said as much, but even more telling than public statements are the allocation of limited enforcement resources.
The VPPA may be nearly four-decades old and video-rental stores largely a thing of the past, but the rise of online content, streaming services and ancillary activities has brought with it frequent litigation based on the VPPA. The key challenge in these litigations is how to interpret the VPPA’s 1980s terms in light of today’s digital advances.