Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Arrival of Justice Gorsuch May Bring Opportunity to Reform the Collective Entity Doctrine
A little over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court declined to extend the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to corporations responding to grand jury subpoenas for documents, establishing what has been termed the “collective entity doctrine.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-76 (1906) (corporate officer, who had been immunized in his individual capacity, attempted to assert Fifth Amendment right on behalf of his employer). Some Justices have expressed discomfort with the application of the collective entity doctrine to small corporations responding to grand jury subpoenas, and recent decisions by the Court have extended First Amendment rights to corporations that had previously been limited to individuals. These developments suggest that the Court, particularly with the arrival of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, might be receptive to reconsidering the scope of the collective entity doctrine, a rule whose principal virtue seems to be that it is a bright-line, particularly in the context of small, closely-held corporations.
The Collective Entity Doctrine
From its inception, the collective entity doctrine has been premised on two considerations: first, the notion that only natural persons can “testify” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination privilege; and second, the fear that prosecuting corporations or other artificial entities would be all but impossible if they could claim the privilege in response to document subpoenas. See Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 383-84 (1911); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906). Over the course of the 20th century, the Court expanded the doctrine, first by holding that corporate officers cannot invoke their personal self-incrimination privilege to avoid turning over corporate documents in their possession. Wilson, 221 U.S. at 379-80.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?