Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.