Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Navigating the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine in Bankruptcy
When a company declares bankruptcy, avoidance actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code) can assist in securing extra cash for the debtor's dwindling estate. When a debtor-in-possession does not pursue these claims, creditors' committees often seek the bankruptcy court's authorization to pursue them on behalf of the estate, through “derivative standing.” Once granted such authorization through a “standing order,” a creditors' committee is said to “stand in the debtor's shoes” because it has permission to litigate certain claims belonging to the debtor that arose before bankruptcy. A standing order typically specifies which claims and rights originally belonging to the debtor the committee may pursue in the litigation.
However, for parties whose cases advance to discovery, such a standing order may cause issues by leaving undecided the allocation of attorney-client privilege and work product protection between the debtor and committee. Inevitably, most if not all documents that the committee will use to make its case were created by the debtor before bankruptcy, and collected by the committee thereafter.
Despite its derivative standing, the committee is not protected by the debtor's privilege unless the committee and debtor previously entered into a common interest agreement. Although this question would be an issue of first impression in the Second Circuit, district courts have concluded that a creditors' committee and debtor do not share privilege or work product protection because their fiduciary duties do not overlap. As a result, any disclosure by the debtor to the committee constitutes a waiver.
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?