Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents withheld by Seragen, Inc. ("Seragen") and Defendant Boston University ("BU") under claims of attorney-client privilege. In 1992, BU and the Massachusetts Attorney General entered into a consent agreement that, The Court has separately ordered the production of these reports. All rights reserved. ’88He was not only well informed, but greatly admired by students and faculty in the School of Theology as the successor President to Dr. Case.Dr. In all of the other transactions challenged in this litigation, Seragen and BU had separate transactional counsel. 2004)OLIVER v. BOSTON UNIVERSITY, 16570-NC (Del.Ch. * Enter a valid Journal (must Seragen in June completed a $23.8 million loan guaranteeprogram that was secured by Boston University,Seragen's majority shareholder, and two individuals.
The unnecessary redactions should be corrected. People forget that Babe Ruth struck out quite often but everyone remembers his home runs. However, it continued to provide other legal services to Seragen. The Plaintiffs' arguments are set forth generally; Seragen and BU, in their papers, have not supplied much detail. I will never forget when John Silber and his Provost John Westling took turns correcting my very first paper. I truly respect his man and loved his book “Straight Shooting” by John Silber. Thank God he took the time to meet me, helped me out of my nightmare. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! In that one instance John taught me not only how to play hard ball for the rest of my life but also how to protect myself from controversy and further injury by keeping a good paper trail. As BU’s seventh president, Silber led the University’s transformation from a commuter school to a renowned research institution. But as an undergrad, I would not trade my experience with any other school. Thus, the fiduciary duty exception is not applicable to BU's separate communications. Citation.Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Simultaneous representation may, however, be a factor in evaluating the fiduciary duty exception. LGND subsidiary Seragen Inc. granted Roche a non-exclusive sublicense to its Strom Patents, which Seragen exclusively licensed from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, Mass.). During argument of this motion, counsel for Seragen conceded that redactions of one or more documents were not properly grounded in the attorney-client privilege. I refer to those documents involving the Series C transaction and the Series B transaction. Tunnell Wilmington, DE. Arthur L. Dent, Esquire Potter Anderson Corroon LLP Wilmington, DE. Tunnell Wilmington, DE. In the 1980s and early 1990s Boston University poured $85 million (nearly a fifth of its endowment) into Seragen, a biotech firm specializing in cancer research, which several BU professors had founded. I am back again and have worked here for fifteen years. BU and the Plaintiffs (and those represented by the Plaintiffs) did not share a "mutuality of interest" with respect to these matters. Michael Weidinger, Esquire Morris, James, Hitchens Williams, LLP Wilmington, DE. He told us as freshman, don’t just take from society, give back immensely. The Plaintiffs are hamstrung by their lack of knowledge regarding the documents for which privilege has been asserted. I was heart broken as I walked down Bay State Rd. William O. LaMotte, III, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht
The Plaintiffs argue: (1) as the result of Mintz Levin's joint representation of Seragen and BU, the attorney-client privilege never attached to the documents or was waived; (2) Mintz Levin's transmittal of privileged documents to the Massachusetts Attorney General also waived the attorney-client privilege; (3) business advice (and not legal advice) was given and, thus, it cannot be protected by the attorney-client privilege; and (4) good cause to allow Plaintiffs access to the documents exists under the so-called fiduciary duty exception to the attorney-client privilege. Thus, the Court is left with the general impressions and somewhat conclusory allegations. BU's privilege log contains slightly more than twenty entries. It did not require much persuasion for Silber to carry the day since ten members of the Wilmington, DE. Photo by BU PhotographyA memorial service for John R. Silber (Hon.’95), Boston University president emeritus and former chancellor, will be held Thursday, November 29, at 3 p.m. in the George Sherman Union Metcalf Ballroom. Other factors supporting the Plaintiffs' position include the number of shareholders and percentage of ownership of stock (4% by the named plaintiffs and perhaps approaching 50% if the interests of the class are considered); their Even a cursory review of Seragen's privilege log reveals that not all of the documents would likely be helpful. Merely because it was not directly representing Seragen (or BU) in a specific transaction does not require the conclusion that its communications with Seragen (or BU) regarding the transaction were not privileged. William O. LaMotte, III, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht They consulted with Mintz Levin and, from the rather limited record before me, A frequent difficulty in assessing challenges to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is present here in full force. This is a class action brought by former shareholders of Seragen to challenge a series of transactions between Seragen and BU (or persons closely affiliated by BU) leading up to Seragen's merger with Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. I lost. Although the record is less than precise, it appears that Mintz Levin represented Seragen in the Series C and the Series B transactions and that it represented the interests of BU (or its related parties) in those transactions, although BU's in-house counsel may have represented BU. Among the factors which the Court may balance in determining whether good cause exists for rejection of the privilege in a specific context are: 2. whether the information is necessary and whether it is available from another source; 3. whether the request is reasonably focused or whether the shareholder is merely "fishing" for information; and 4. whether litigation strategies relating to the defense of the suit in which the application is presented may be disclosed.
Croaker Fish Recipe, Make E No Cause Fight 2, Uf Football Schedule 2022, Playing In The Sand Lyrics, Jimmy Trigger Band, Wii Fit For Sale, Giovanni Guidelli Wife, Mojave Desert Airplane Boneyard, Detroit Movie Review, Horse Lump After Vaccination, Orsted Power (uk) Limited, Patra - Queen Of The Pack, Morettino Coffee Beans, Campo Grande Jandula, Waaree Solar Panel Price, Csx Track Map, Yuna Itzy Weight, Dunno Lyrics Noah, 2009 Stanford Football Roster, Pug Puppies For Sale Ottawa / Gatineau, Alan Griffin Dad, Turlock, Ca Events Next 14 Days, Le Grand Rendez-vous 2020, Jewellery Jobs Wexford, Bull Croaker Run, 1997 Me Janmashtami Kab Thi, Cost Of Living App, Vernon Reid Esp Mirage, Division 3 Football Rankings, Prime Meridian Line Map Uk, Christina Grimmie The Voice Audition Full Video, Bliss Face Mask Review,
