Parent Corp. Successfully Invokes Privilege for Dissolved Subsidiary—Here’s How

In our complex corporate world of parents, direct and indirect subsidiaries, affiliates, mergers, acquisitions, and dissolutions, an increasingly litigated issue is whether a parent’s in-house counsel may have privileged communications with the subsidiary’s employees.  The USDC for E.D. Missouri sustained a parent company’s privilege assertion over its in-house lawyers’ communications with a defunct subsidiary.

How? By invoking the joint–client doctrine.  Robinson Mech. Contractors Inc. v. PTC Group Holding Corp., 2017 WL 2021070 (E.D. Mo. May 12, 2017).  You may read the decision here.  Let’s discuss.

Bankrupt Subsidiary

When PTC Seamless Tube failed to pay Robinson Mechanical for construction work, Robinson sued Seamless and its parent, PTC Group Holding.  Seamless filed for bankruptcy and, before its ultimate dissolution, transferred its documents, including privileged documents, to Holding.  The Bankruptcy Court’s transfer order, available here, expressly stated that Holding’s review of Seamless’ privileged documents would not result in privilege waiver.

Privilege Assertion

Robinson nevertheless moved to compel the documents, arguing that Seamless, now a dissolved entity which defaulted in the lawsuit and had no management, cannot assert the privilege.  The Bankruptcy Court’s order, it argued, was simply a non-waiver provision and did not grant Holding—its parent—independent power to assert Seamless’ privilege.

Holding initially relied on the Bankruptcy Court’s order for its privilege claim, but then asserted the joint–client doctrine in supplemental briefing.  Holding argued that it and Seamless were joint clients that shared in-house counsel.  In support, Holding’s General Counsel filed a More…

A Non-Political, Legal Analysis of Trump Jr.’s Privilege Claim 3

Donald Trump, Jr.’s attorney–client privilege assertion over discussions with President Trump—in the presence of lawyers—has generated significant commentary on television news shows, and in news articles and opinion columns.  Some claim the privilege assertion was “brazen” and “unequivocally” wrong, while others see merit in the privilege argument or take a wait-and-see approach.

This is political—not legal—theater.

Many have expressed an interest in my analysis. So, here it is—my objective, non-political, legal analysis of the Trump Jr.’s privilege claim based on what we know. Those seeking blind support of the privilege assertion or a conclusory, hyperbolic denouncement should look elsewhere. More…

Privilege Protects Indemnitor and Indemnitee’s Discussions—If You Prove It

An interesting privilege issue maneuvered through the NC court system—does a contract’s indemnification provision create an attorney–client relationship between a law firm, indemnitee, and a non-party indemnitor so that the privilege protects communications between the indemnitor and indemnitee?

In a decision that I profiled in this post, the NC Court of Appeals held that the indemnification clause created a business—not legal—interest between the indemnitor and indemnitee, and therefore the common–interest doctrine did not protect their communications from discovery.

But the NC Supreme Court reversed, ruling that an indemnification agreement creates a common legal interest between an indemnitor and indemnitee because “the indemnitor contractually shares in the indemnitee’s legal well-being.”  This common interest creates a tripartite attorney–client relationship between the indemnitee, indemnitor, and their defense counsel.  Friday Investments, LLC v. Bally Total Fitness of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc., 2017 WL 5016625 (N.C. Nov. 3, 2017).  You may read the decision here. More…