Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Third-Party Litigation Investing and Attorney-Client Privilege
Civil litigation is potentially expensive, and achieving lucrative outcomes is not without risk. In recent years, companies with viable claims have looked to diversify their risk by partnering with third-party investors. Successful investment relationships require substantial due diligence and communication. This communication may include claim-holder materials that are subject to the attorney-client privilege or that are considered attorney work product.
A claim-holder's communications with its investors, or potential investors, introduces the risk of privilege waiver and the potential exposure of sensitive information to an adverse party in later litigation. An attractive discovery subject for any defendant may be the materials shared between the plaintiff and its investor. The plaintiff's evaluation of its claims would provide good information for cross-examination. Thus, the issues of privilege and work product protection arise when a plaintiff shares otherwise protected information.
Case law addressing whether these communications destroy the privilege is limited and inconsistent. Courts are divided on whether the claimed commonality in such a relationship ' a financial interest ' is enough to preserve privilege. Still, the claim-holder will need to communicate some information to an investor to obtain investment in the prosecution of its claims. This article considers recent case law addressing privilege challenges and third-party investment relationships, and provides suggestions on how to minimize the risk of destroying any privilege through the provision of sensitive information in such relationships.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.