Advertisement

April 18, 2014

Assertion of Common Interest Doctrine and Business Strategy Privilege Rejected

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently rejected a party’s argument that the “common interest doctrine” and the “business strategy privilege” shielded documents from discovery.

CrossFit, Inc. (CrossFit), a distributor of fitness and training regimens, was wholly owned by an artificial entity, the marital community of Greg and Lauren Glassman. The entity was in the process of dissolution as a result of the Glassmans’ divorce proceedings. Ms. Glassman committed to sell her share in CrossFit to a private equity firm, Anthos Capital, L.P. (Anthos). Mr. Glassman moved to compel the production of documents containing communications between Ms. Glassman and Anthos concerning the sale of Ms. Glassman’s share. Ms. Glassman argued that the common interest and business strategy immunity doctrines shielded the documents from discovery.

The Court of Chancery rejected Ms. Glassman’s arguments. It held that the common interest doctrine applies when parties with a common legal interest share privileged communications in furtherance of that legal interest. The court found that Ms. Glassman had not demonstrated that the communications with Anthos were “sufficiently legal,” and not simply commercial, and thus subject to common interest doctrine. Crucially, the court held that “communications about a business deal, even when the parties are seeking to structure a deal so as to avoid the threat of litigation, will generally not be privileged under the common-interest doctrine. The doctrine only protects those communications that directly relate to the parties’ legal interests, such as their potential common defense strategies.”

The court also held that the business strategy immunity doctrine did not apply. Under the business strategy immunity doctrine, certain information may be protected from disclosure if the information may be used for practical business advantages rather than for proper legal purposes. In declining to apply business strategy immunity doctrine, the court found that the risk of improper business advantage was mitigated by a confidentiality order between the parties and that the risk was outweighed by the potential probative value of the communications.

Glassman v. CrossFit, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 7717-VCG (Del. Ch. Oct. 12, 2012).

©2014 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

About the Author

Bruce M. Sabados, Financial Institutions Attorney, Katten Muchin Law Firm
Partner

Bruce M. Sabados concentrates his practice in complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on securities- and financial services-related matters and secured lender litigation. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of commercial matters in federal and state courts and in arbitration. His clients include securities firms, international banks, hedge funds, high net worth individuals and asset-backed lenders. Bruce handles matters involving fraud, restrictive covenants, breaches of contract, business torts and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). He...

212-940-6369

About the Author

Joseph E. Gallo, Litigation Attorney, Katten Muchin Law Firm
Associate

Joseph Gallo concentrates his practice in securities litigation and dispute resolution matters. 

212-940-6549

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.