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
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.