Watch What You Say: Disparaging Comments May Trigger Contractual Repurchase Rights Even If Shielded From A Defamation Claim
A recent Delaware decision has demonstrated the limits of the absolute litigation privilege, holding that it did not protect an LLC member from claims that his defamatory statements triggered contractual repurchase rights of his membership interests. Absolute litigation privilege, in Delaware and many other jurisdictions, protects parties from actions for allegedly defamatory statements made during a judicial proceeding that are relevant to the case. While Judge Paul R. Wallace found absolute litigation privilege served an important interest in allowing parties to speak freely once in litigation, those public policy concerns do not always apply when a party is seeking to enforce private contractual rights resulting from the alleged breach of a non-disparagement claim. In so holding, the court demonstrated that Delaware courts will continue to show caution before allowing public policy interests to obviate the obligations in sophisticated parties’ private contracts.
Good Fences Make Good Neighbors and Preserve Attorney-Client Privilege in the Boardroom: A Word of Caution for Boards Navigating Potential Disputes Among Directors or With Funds They Manage
The boardroom frequently presents attorney-client privilege and work product protection issues. The Delaware Court of Chancery’s recent decision in Hyde Park Venture Partners Fund III, LP v. FairXchange, LLC, C.A. No. 2022-0344-JTL (Del. Ch. March 9, 2023), provides a reminder of the importance of vigilance in considering when and how to limit a director’s access to privileged materials in circumstances where directors’ interests may diverge – particularly where directors manage, or are affiliated with, investment funds owning stock of the Company.
Special Committee Counsel Prohibited from “Advocating” as Both Counsel and Witness in Shareholder Derivative Trial
The Delaware Court of Chancery in In re Straight Path recently applied the state’s professional conduct rules to prohibit Special Committee counsel from both appearing as a fact witness at trial and representing former Special Committee members in the same trial. In so doing, the Court offered its most recent consideration of Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct 3.7(a), which precludes a lawyer in most circumstances from “advocat[ing] at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.”
Another Musk-Twitter Sideshow Reminds That Which Email Address You Use Matters
The headline-generating Twitter-Musk saga has caused the Court’s rapid-fire issuance of more than 30 letters and memorandum opinions. Others have already been discussed on this blog. Another among them is notable for the Court’s consideration of whether Elon Musk waived privilege by sending and receiving otherwise privileged communications about the Twitter acquisition using his Tesla and SpaceX email addresses. This brief decision is an important reminder that yes, it does matter which email address you use to communicate about otherwise privileged matters. (more…)
Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance
Sidley is pleased to share the December 2020 issue of Sidley Perspectives on M&A and Corporate Governance, a quarterly newsletter designed to keep you current on what we consider to be the most important legal developments involving M&A and corporate governance matters.
