In this month’s column we discuss cases in which the Court of Appeals addressed the application of the common interest doctrine to communications shared between companies in the process of merging, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to two former AIG executives in a case brought by the Attorney General, and determined that a trial court’s failure to meaningfully respond to a note from a deliberating jury does not require reversal as long as counsel had been given notice of the note’s content.
Common Interest Doctrine
In Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, the Court of Appeals held that the common interest doctrine permitting separately represented parties to share privileged communications only applies when the communications at issue relate to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. This ruling represents a more narrow view of the doctrine than that adopted in most other jurisdictions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
