Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bankruptcy Court Highlights Pitfalls to Avoid When Retaining Experts
The retention of an expert is obviously common and essential in many litigation scenarios. However, simply because the expert is retained by counsel in anticipation of litigation, does not automatically render all communications privileged. This is generally true whether the litigation is pending in a bankruptcy or nonbankruptcy proceeding. Therefore, the terms of an expert's retention, as well any decision as to what information is disclosed must be carefully considered in advance. A recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Northwest Senior Housing v. Intercity Investment Properties (In re Northwest Senior Housing), 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1001 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2023), addressed these important issues involving the retention of a public relations firm and highlights some important pitfalls to avoid.
Northwest Senior Housing Corp., a Chapter 11 debtor, brought an adversary proceeding that asserted that certain disclosures made by the defendants violated a nondisclosure agreement between the parties. Pre-petition, the defendants' counsel entered into a consulting agreement with a public relations firm (the PR firm), which contemplated the provision of public relations advice in connection with anticipated litigation with the debtor.
Within the adversary, the debtor sought discovery from the defendants and the PR firm related to communications and documents exchanged between them. The defendants and PR firm asserted privilege and refused to produce, resulting in the debtor filing a motion to compel. The bankruptcy court determined that there were two key issues: 1) whether the attorney-client privilege applied between the PR firm and the defendants based on the PR firm's retention by the defendants' counsel; and 2) whether the consulting-expert privilege applied to protect the communications from production. Finding that neither privilege applied, the bankruptcy court ordered production.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.