Sweets Co. of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• finding the analysis in Kovel did not apply because the third-party advisor in question was merely the source of factual information
• noting 13 that “a communication between an attorney and a third party does not become shielded by the attorney-client privilege solely because the communication proves important to the attorney’s ability to represent the client”
• third party involvement must be necessary “to improve the comprehension of the communication between attorney and client.”
• after bringing an investment opportunity to a company, an investment banker discussed the implications of the proposal with the company’s in-house counsel
• communication between an attorney and an investment-advisor about a client’s prospective transaction was not privileged
• “because [the third party’s] role was not as a translator or interpreter of client communications, the principle of Kovel does not shield his discussions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).