1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Delaware Joins Trend of Eroding Attorney-Client Privilege Protection of Investigation Materials

Delaware Joins Trend of Eroding Attorney-Client Privilege Protection of Investigation Materials

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.13.14

In a decision with potentially far-reaching ramifications for companies conducting internal investigations, the Delaware Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW (July 23, 2014) ordered Wal-Mart to hand over attorney-client privileged documents describing how it set up its investigation into Mexican bribery allegations. The Delaware Supreme Court held that, under the Garner exception, which allows stockholders to invade a corporation’s attorney-client privilege to prove a fiduciary breach by those in control of the corporation upon showing of good cause, Wal-Mart was required to comply with the stockholders’ request for information relating to the investigation, the potential of a cover-up, and the reports provided to the board of directors.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: GAO Sustains Protest Where Agency Tried to Fix PIA Violation with a Second PIA Violation

Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”...