<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/05/07/court-rejects-selective-waiver-doctrine-for-privileged-materials/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:32:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Court Rejects Selective Waiver Doctrine for Privileged Materials</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/05/07/court-rejects-selective-waiver-doctrine-for-privileged-materials/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-rejects-selective-waiver-doctrine-for-privileged-materials</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/05/07/court-rejects-selective-waiver-doctrine-for-privileged-materials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 13:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislative & Regulatory Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In re Pacific Pictures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. federal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=28451?d=20150113145646EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Corporations subject to criminal and civil regulatory investigations have long grappled with the highly charged decision over whether to provide the government with privileged communications and attorney work product or whether to maintain those materials as privileged despite a governmental inquiry. On the one hand, a corporation may hope to avoid criminal prosecution or civil [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Monday, May 7, 2012 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;">The following post comes to us from <a href="http://www.fenwick.com/professionals/pages/chrissteskal.aspx" target="_blank">Christopher J. Steskal</a>, partner and chair of the White Collar/Regulatory Group at Fenwick &amp; West LLP, and is based on a Fenwick Alert by Mr. Steskal, <a href="http://www.fenwick.com/professionals/pages/susanmuck.aspx" target="_blank">Susan S. Muck</a>, <a href="http://www.fenwick.com/professionals/pages/jenniferbretan.aspx" target="_blank">Jennifer C. Bretan</a>, and <a href="http://www.fenwick.com/professionals/pages/alexis-i.-caloza.aspx" target="_blank">Alexis I. Caloza</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>Corporations subject to criminal and civil regulatory investigations have long grappled with the highly charged decision over whether to provide the government with privileged communications and attorney work product or whether to maintain those materials as privileged despite a governmental inquiry. On the one hand, a corporation may hope to avoid criminal prosecution or civil regulatory action, as well as potential downstream effects of such actions on insurance rights and indemnification, by forthright disclosure of &#8220;relevant facts&#8221; to the government, including information that may be protected by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. <em>See</em> <em>Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations</em>, reprinted in <em>United States Attorneys&#8217; Manual</em>, tit. 9 ch. 9-28.710, 9-28.720(a). On the other hand, in disclosing privileged materials and work product to the government, the corporation risks having waived the privilege over those very same materials as to third parties, including civil litigants seeking to recover monetary damages from the corporation.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/05/07/court-rejects-selective-waiver-doctrine-for-privileged-materials/#more-28451" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Court Rejects Selective Waiver Doctrine for Privileged Materials">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/05/07/court-rejects-selective-waiver-doctrine-for-privileged-materials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
