Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Asserting the Common Interest Doctrine In Plan-Related Discovery
The common interest doctrine creates an oftentimes frustrating exception to the general rule that disclosure of information to a party outside of the normal attorney-client relationship destroys privilege. Essentially, it extends the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine so that, in certain situations, privileged communications and documents may be shared with third parties without waiver when the parties share similar legal interests. It can be a powerful tool when used to block discovery of relevant and sometimes critical evidence. However, a determination of when the common interest doctrine can be invoked requires a highly fact-intensive analysis.
To that end, a recent letter opinion by Judge Laurie Silverstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware provides a helpful review of the standard for the assertion of the common interest privilege in the context of a plan discovery fight. See, In re Imerys Talc America, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 428 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 23, 2021).
In Imerys, the debtors, the tort claimants committee (TCC), the future claimants representative (FCR), and the debtors' parent, Imerys SA (collectively, the plan proponents) filed a proposed joint plan of reorganization (the plan). In connection with the plan, certain potential opponents sought discovery from the debtors, the TCC and the FCR. In reviewing letters submitted by the parties and the attached categorical privilege logs, the court summarized the five main categories of documents that the plan proponents were asserting the common interest doctrine over: communications and documents regarding the trust distribution procedures; the bankruptcy generally with the debtors' parent, Imerys S.A.; settlements with third parties embodied in the plan; maximization of estate assets; and the plan generally.
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?