Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Individual employees often act pursuant to advice from their in-house counsel. If named as a defendant in which her action is challenged, the employee may want to assert advice of corporate counsel as a defense. But the privilege belongs to the employer, not the employee, and the employer may refuse to waive the privilege. Can the court abrogate the employer's privilege over the objection of the employer, and if so under what circumstances?
In United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 132 F. Supp. 3d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), and Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2005), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, respectively, addressed precisely this question, and held that the court could not abrogate the employer's privilege.
Wells Fargo was a False Claims Act action by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Wells Fargo Bank and one of its employees, Kurt Lofrano. Lofrano contended, in substance, that he had consulted with Wells Fargo's counsel about certain of his actions that were at the heart of the lawsuit before he had taken those actions, and had understood that he was permitted to take them. Thus, he claimed, he had a potentially dispositive advice of counsel defense.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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 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.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?