Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Special Committees and Protecting Privilege

By Thaddeus J. Malik, David M. Greenwald and Mercedes M. Davis
February 26, 2008

Your company receives an allegation of serious wrongdoing involving a current board member. After an initial review and perhaps a discussion with the chair of your Audit Committee, it is agreed that the matter cannot be dismissed out of hand and should be elevated to the board of directors. After a meeting and discussion by the independent and non-conflicted directors, a decision is made to form a special committee to fully investigate the matter. That committee is formed, retains its own outside advisers, and commences its investigation. During that investigation, the committee interviews employees and reviews internal documents, taking care to maximize the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine as well. After the investigation is completed and the committee has reached its conclusions, it is now time for the committee to present its findings to the remaining directors so that appropriate steps can be taken to respond to any confirmed wrongdoing. The question then becomes how the board can discharge its fiduciary duties without waiving otherwise applicable privileges to the investigation and opening the door to discovery of investigation related materials by the government or by third party litigation adversaries.

Ryan v. Gifford

Two recent unpublished opinions issued by the Delaware Chancery Court shed some light on the analysis, and also offer a cautionary tale. In Ryan v. Gifford, Civ. Action No. 2213-CC, the court specifically addresses the privilege issue in the context of a shareholder derivative action. 2007 WL 4259557 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007) ('Ryan I'); 2008 WL 43699 (Del. Ch. Jan. 2, 2008) ('Ryan II'). In particular, the court identified several actions that may put privilege in jeopardy.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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 Image

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.