In Re Teleglobe Communications Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “it does not break confidence to share an attorney-parent communication with an officer of the parent in her capacity as officer of the parent, even though she is also a director or officer of a subsidiary.”
• explaining that communications outside the scope of the joint representation, even if shared with a conflicted joint attorney, are not discoverable, but communications within the scope are discoverable
• describing the origins of and the differences between the co-client privilege and the common-interest privilege, and how those doctrines apply in the parent-subsidiary context
• collecting cases in support of the “longstanding rule” that “a party must raise an issue before the District Court in order to press it on appeal”
• common-interest privilege permits attorneys to share information with one another
• applying Delaware law and citing Delaware Rule of Evidence 502(d)(6)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).