Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents
August 13, 2014 —
Marc S. Casarino and Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLPDelaware corporations may be required to turn over internal documents of directors and officers, including those of in-house counsel, where the factors enumerated in Garner v. Walfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) weigh in favor of disclosure. In a July 23, 2014 decision of first-impression, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, that the Garner doctrine applies to plenary shareholder/corporation disputes, as well as to books and records inspection actions under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Garner doctrine provides that a shareholder may invade the corporation’s attorney-client privilege in order to prove fiduciary breaches by those in control of the corporation upon a showing of good cause. The non-exhaustive list of factors by which a finding of good cause should be tested are:
“(i) the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; (ii) the bona fides of the shareholders; (iii) the nature of the shareholders’ claim and whether it is obviously colorable; (iv) the apparent necessity or desirability of the shareholders having the information and the availability of it from other sources; (v) whether, if the shareholders’ claim is of wrongful action by the corporation, it is of action criminal, or illegal but not criminal, or of doubtful legality; (vi) whether the communication is of advice concerning the litigation itself; (vii) the extent to which the communication is identified versus the extent to which the shareholders are blindly fishing; and (viii) the risk of revelation of trade secrets or other information in whose confidentiality the corporation has an interest for independent reasons.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP and
Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause
March 09, 2020 —
Aimee Cook Oleson - Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIndemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement.
Indemnification clauses are arguably the most important part of an agreement when an accident or dispute arises on a project. Therefore, they deserve an extra look before finalizing an agreement. Here are a few issues to keep in mind when reviewing your next indemnification clause:
- Have you included all necessary parties?
- Any party who could face potential liability should be included as an indemnified party. This often includes entities and persons related to the contracting parties, not just the parties themselves.
- A well drafted indemnity clause will ensure that all parties are liable for the result of their own work and negligence and that of any party that they have hired to work on a project. This includes employees, agents, subcontractors, or any other similar party.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aimee Cook Oleson, Sheppard MullinMs. Oleson may be contacted at
AOleson@sheppardmullin.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley Magazine
February 08, 2021 —
Traub LiebermanThirteen Traub Lieberman attorneys have been named 2021 Top Lawyers by Hudson Valley magazine. The honored attorneys represent the firm's Hawthorne New York office and six practice areas.
Hudson Valley magazine uses online peer-voting and an internet search process to select outstanding lawyers from more than 30 practice areas, who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
"We are very proud of all of our attorneys for being recognized as among the top lawyers in the Hudson Valley,” said Partner and Vice-Chair Lisa Shrewsberry.
Related Attorneys:
Sara Kiridly,
Mario Castellitto,
Colleen E. Hastie,
Timothy G. McNamara,
Robert S. Nobel,
Richard J. Rogers,
Adam Krauss,
Taylor C. Eagan,
Stephen D. Straus,
Lisa L. Shrewsberry,
Lisa M. Rolle,
Jonathan R. Harwood,
Hillary J. Raimondi Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties
April 25, 2022 —
Martin C. McCarthy - Construction ExecutiveBusiness owners must carefully consider how the people working for them are classified. There is a fine line between being identified as a contractor or employee on the job. Owners must know the difference to avoid being penalized.
Worker classification determines if an employer must withhold income taxes and pay Social Security, Medicare taxes and unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. Businesses do not have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors. The earnings of a person working as an independent contractor are subject to self-employment tax.
There are federal and state rules for determining if a person is an employee or contractor. Employers must follow both sets of guidelines when classifying workers.
Reprinted courtesy of
Martin C. McCarthy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. McCarthy may be contacted at marty.mccarthy@mcc-cpas.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 20, 2011 in the case of Arundel Homeowners Association v. Arundel Green Partners, a construction defect case involving a condominium conversion in San Francisco. Eight years after the Notice of Completion was filed, the homeowners association filed a lawsuit alleging a number of construction defects, including “defective cabinets, waterproofing membranes, wall-cladding, plumbing, electrical wiring, roofing (including slope, drainage and flashings), fire-rated ceilings, and chimney flues.” Three years of settlement negotiations followed.
Negotiations ended in the eleventh year with the homeowners association filing a lawsuit. Arundel Green argued that the suit should be thrown out as California’s ten-year statute of limitations had passed. The court granted judgment to Arundel Green.
The homeowners then filed for a new trial and to amend its complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply due to the doctrine of equitable estoppel as Arundel Green’s actions had lead them to believe the issues could be solved without a lawsuit. “The HOA claimed that it was not until after the statute of limitations ran that the HOA realized Arundel Green would not keep its promises; and after this realization, the HOA promptly brought its lawsuit.” The trial court denied the homeowners association’s motions, which the homeowners association appealed.
In reviewing the case, the Appeals Court compared Arundel to an earlier California Supreme Court case, Lantzy. (The homeowners also cited Lantzy as the basis of their appeal.) In Lantzy, the California Supreme Court set up a four-part test as to whether estoppel could be applied. The court applied these tests and found, as was the case in Lantzy, that there were no grounds for estoppel.
In Arundel, the court noted that “there are simply no allegations that Arundel Green made any affirmative statement or promise that would lull the HOA into a reasonable belief that its claims would be resolved without filing a lawsuit.” The court also cited Lesko v. Superior Court which included a recommendation that the plaintiffs “send a stipulation?Ķextending time.” This did not happen and the court upheld the dismissal.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brazil's Detained Industry Captain Says No Plea Deals Coming
September 03, 2015 —
Sabrina Valle & Yasmine Batista – BloombergMarcelo Odebrecht, the most prominent executive who has been detained in Brazil’s largest corruption scandal, said he sees no reason to strike a plea bargain with authorities because he has nothing to reveal.
Odebrecht said in a congressional hearing Tuesday that he probably discussed with President Dilma Rousseff and her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva the relationship between Odebrecht SA and Petrobras, the state-controlled oil producer at the center of the kickback investigation. It was a natural topic given the economic importance of his construction and engineering empire, he said. He declined to answer questions related to the criminal case, saying it is ongoing and he is unaware of the full extent of the accusations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sabrina Valle, Bloomberg and
Yasmine Batista, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Top Developments March 2024
April 22, 2024 —
Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterCLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024)
Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue.
POLLUTION EXCLUSION
Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024)
A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Californians Swarm Few Listings Cuts to Affordable Homes
September 24, 2014 —
John Gittelsohn and Nadja Brandt – BloombergThe 160 units at Santa Monica, California’s Belmar Apartments received 4,600 applications ahead of the project’s July opening, a measure of the competition for scarce affordable housing.
The Related Cos. project, where two-bedroom units rent for $946 a month, is among the last built with financing from redevelopment agencies, the taxpayer-backed programs that Governor Jerry Brown eliminated three years ago to help balance California’s budget. Without that source of $1 billion a year, the state’s supply of funds for building low- and moderate-income housing is running dry as real estate prices surge.
“The abolishment of the redevelopment agencies by Governor Brown is the single biggest problem” for affordable housing, said William Witte, president of Related’s California division, which also is seeking buyers for condominiums next to Belmar with an average price of $2.4 million. “Since there’s little to no help from the federal government, the loss of redevelopment funds is devastating.”
Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Gittelsohn and Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
