Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A. (HCMC)

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
February 1, 2019

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (3,485 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
7361 Employment Agencies
561311 Employment Placement Agencies
discovery
breach of fiduciary duty, trustee, overpayment, employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), attorney-client privilege
Acosta v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16632; 2019 WL 416329
US
Federal Court
New York
United States District Court
N/A (plaintiff); N/A (defendants)
Fox

Summary

In ESOP discovery dispute, court orders disclosure of documents involving company’s independent financial advisor; there is no attorney-client privilege where parties’ engagement agreement expressly designated advisor as an “independent contractor with no fiduciary or agency to the Company.”
Acosta v Wilmington Trust, N.A.
PDF, Size: 167 KB

See Also

In ESOP Dispute, Court Orders Disclosure of Communications Involving Independent Financial Advisor

Court Case Digests
February 1, 2019

In ESOP discovery dispute, court orders disclosure of documents involving company’s independent financial advisor; there is no attorney-client privilege where parties’ engagement agreement expressly designated advisor as an “independent contractor with no fiduciary or agency to the Company.”

This article also appears in:
BVR Guide to Management Projections and Business Valuation: Analysis and Case Law