United States: New York Court Dispenses With The Litigation Requirement For The Application Of The Common-Interest Privilege: Why Transactional Counsel Should Pay Attention

Last Updated: February 9 2015
Article by Sammi Malek

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, broke with other New York courts and joined Delaware and federal courts in applying the common-interest privilege to circumstances where there is no pending, anticipated, or threatened litigation. In a unanimous decision in Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,1. the First Department permitted the application of the common-interest privilege to merger parties' pre-closing communications. The court based its ruling on the need for parties to a transaction to share common legal advice "in order to accurately navigate the complex legal and regulatory process involved in completing the transaction."2.

The First Department's decision is significant because while it is in line with precedent followed by the Second, Third, Seventh and the Federal Circuits, as well as Delaware courts, it is a significant departure from decisions by other New York courts, particularly the Second Department. The Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) has yet to consider the propriety of a litigation requirement for the common-interest privilege, but the First Department's well-reasoned and pragmatic decision, which is consistent with the weight of the authority on the subject in other jurisdictions, as well as the realities of today's business world, makes it likely that the Court of Appeals would follow suit should the issue come before it.

Decisions from the Appellate Division often capture the interest of litigators, but this decision is of particular importance to transactional counsel because the steps that need to be taken for the privilege to be upheld by a court down the road must be considered and executed well before any prospect of litigation arises. Although the decision has some language that could be narrowly construed to limit the application of the common-interest privilege to circumstances similar to Ambac, there are certain best practices, discussed below, that transactional counsel should follow to increase the likelihood that in the event of a dispute, their clients can enjoy the protection of this privilege.

Procedural History and the Lower Court Decision

The underlying lawsuit involves a claim by plaintiff Ambac Assurance Corporation (Ambac), an insurer of residential mortgage-backed securities, against defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and certain of its affiliated entities (Countrywide). Ambac claimed that Countrywide fraudulently induced it to insure payments on certain residential mortgage-backed securities. Because one of the Countrywide affiliates subsequently merged with a subsidiary of Bank of America Corp. (BOA), Ambac asserted secondary claims against defendant BOA as Countrywide's successor-in-interest.

In connection with its successor liability claims, Ambac sought disclosure of several hundred documents reflecting communications among the BOA subsidiary, the Countrywide affiliate, and their counsel in the period between the signing of the merger agreement and the closing of the merger.3. BOA refused to disclose the documents, arguing that they were protected by the common-interest privilege exception to the waiver of the attorney-client privilege. BOA relied in part on the fact that all information and materials exchanged between the parties under the merger agreement were subject to confidentiality provisions, and the parties had executed a common-interest agreement shortly before they signed the merger agreement.4. BOA claimed that it and Countrywide, "two heavily regulated public financial institutions—required shared legal advice from counsel together in order to ensure their accurate compliance with the law and to advance their common interests in resolving the many legal issues necessary for successful completion of the merger."5.

A special master overseeing the discovery dispute ordered BOA to produce the documents, concluding that "the common interest rule . . . does not apply unless the parties share a common legal interest that impacts potential litigation involving all parties, and that to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the narrow scope of the attorney-client privilege."6. Justice Eileen Bransten of the commercial division upheld the ruling, holding that there must be "a reasonable anticipation of litigation for the common-interest doctrine to apply" and that none existed in this case.7. BOA appealed.

The First Department's Decision

In a unanimous reversal of the lower court's decision, the First Department held that "in today's business environment, pending or reasonably anticipated litigation is not a necessary element of the common-interest privilege."8. While the court acknowledged a line of cases from other New York courts, particularly the Second Department, where the court had applied a pending or anticipated litigation requirement, the First Department found this requirement to be inconsistent with the purpose of the attorney-client privilege: "The attorney-client privilege is not tied to the contemplation of litigation, because advice is often sought, and rendered, precisely to avoid litigation, or facilitate compliance with the law, or simply to guide a client's course of conduct."9. The court further emphasized the need for the application of the common-interest privilege to a case involving corporate parties, observing that "because of the vast and complicated array of regulatory legislation confronting the modern corporation, corporations, unlike most individuals, constantly go to lawyers to find out how to obey the law, particularly since compliance with the law in this area is hardly an instinctive matter,"10. quoting from the Supreme Court's decision in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981).

The court justified its departure from the holding of other New York courts by observing that those courts had adopted a litigation requirement based on case law applying the common-interest privilege in a criminal context where co-defendants and their counsel "share information in furtherance of a common defense."11. The court found this line of cases to be inadequate in addressing the specific situation presented in Ambac:

[T]wo business entities, having signed a merger agreement without contemplating litigation, and having signed a confidentiality agreement, required the shared advice of counsel in order to accurately navigate the complex legal and regulatory process involved in completing the transaction. . . . [I]mposing a litigation requirement in this scenario discourages parties with a shared legal interest, such as the signed merger agreement here, from seeking and sharing that advice, and would inevitably result instead in the onset of regulatory or private litigation because of the parties' lack of sound guidance from counsel. This outcome would make poor legal as well as poor business policy.12.

Thus the court specifically held that no pending, threatened, or anticipated litigation was required for the application of the common-interest privilege.

Lessons of Ambac

While the Ambac decision is significant in its departure from current New York law in other departments and its alignment with the prevailing precedent on the common-interest privilege law in the federal courts and in Delaware, it is important to note that the decision is controlling law only in the First Department, which includes cases filed in Manhattan and the Bronx. Unless and until the Court of Appeals speaks on the issue, the law in the Second Department (which includes cases filed in Brooklyn and Queens) still requires "reasonable anticipation of litigation"13. before the common-interest privilege can apply.

The decision also raises as many questions as it answers. The language of the opinion itself emphasizes the case-by-case nature of the inquiry at issue.14. And although the legal principles underlying the court's reasoning are stated clearly, the decision's application in each particular case remains far from clear.

For example, the decision focuses a great deal on the execution of the merger agreement between the BOA and Countrywide entities, leaving open the question of whether the common-interest privilege applies to communications during due diligence conducted prior to the signing of the merger agreement. The decision also does not address who controls the privilege after the close of the merger. The court has indicated an inclination to look to Delaware law for guidance, and Delaware law provides that while rights to privileged communications generally pass to the purchaser upon the close of a merger,15. parties to a merger agreement can agree to limit the purchaser's post-merger rights to certain privileged communications.16.

Finally, while the decision does not explicitly limit its application to circumstances where the parties have entered into a common interest, as well as a confidentiality agreement, the court makes it clear that it considered these agreements as important factors in reaching its decision.17. Thus a prudent practitioner in this jurisdiction is well served to keep in mind two main takeaways to ensure the greatest benefit from this business-friendly decision by the First Department:

  • Reach an agreement and memorialize it. As mentioned above, the court implicitly relied upon the merger agreement (and its confidentiality provision) and the common interest agreement as a clear indication of the parties' intent regarding what they viewed as privileged and who owned that privilege. In the context of sophisticated business entities, the courts will likely give considerable weight to the parties' contemporaneous views regarding what information was necessary to exchange in furtherance of their common interest and the characterization of such information as confidential.
  • Separate legal from business interests. The Ambac court specifically held that so "long as the primary or predominant purpose for the communication with counsel is for the parties to obtain legal advice or to further a legal interest common to the parties, and not to obtain advice of a predominately business nature, the communication will remain privileged."18. Counsel and their clients must be mindful of the nature of the communications and/or information they seek to keep confidential under a common-interest privilege theory and maintain rigorous distinctions between legal and business advice in order to protect the former from disclosure down the road.

Footnotes

[1] Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08510, 2014 WL 6803006 at *1 (1st Dep't, Dec. 4, 2014).
[2] Id. at 5.
[3] Ambac also argued that these documents were relevant because "documents [BOA] previously produced . . . suggest that [BOA] may have been put on notice of the prevalence of unreported fraud at Countrywide well before the merger." Id. at *2 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
[4] Id. at *1.
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at *2.
[7] Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2013 WL 5629595, at *1-2 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Oct. 16, 2013).
[8] Ambac, 2014 WL 6803006 at *1.
[9] Id. at *3 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[10] Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[11] Id. at *5.
[12] Id.
[13] Hyatt v. State of Cal. Franchise Tax Bd., 105 A.D.3d 186, 205 (2d Dep't 2013); Hudson Val. Mar., Inc. v. Town of Cortlandt, 30 A.D.3d 377, 378 (2d Dep't 2006).
[14] See, e.g., Ambac, 2014 WL 6803006 at *1 ("Indeed, the circumstances presented in this case illustrate precisely the reason that the common-interest privilege should apply—namely, that business entities often have important legal interests to protect even without the looming specter of litigation.") (emphasis added).
[15] See CFTC v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 349 (1985).
[16] See Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLLP, 80 A.3d 155, 161 (Del. Ch. 2013) (advising parties "to use their contractual freedom . . . to exclude from the transferred assets the attorney-client communications they wish to retain as their own").
[17] See, e.g., Ambac, 2014 WL 6803006 at *5.
[18] Id. at 4.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions