Significant 2d Circuit Opinion on Lack of Waiver of Attorney-Client and Work Product Privileges in Common Interest Situation (11/14/16)

Note, this presentation was substantially revised on 11/15/16.

In Schaeffler v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19617 (2d Cir. 2015), here, the Second Circuit rendered a major decision on the issue of waiver of the attorney client privilege, through § 7525, here, in a common legal interest context.  The Court's opening paragraph is:

Georg F.W. Schaeffler ("Mr. Schaeffler" or "Schaeffler") and associated entities ("Schaeffler Group") (collectively "appellants") appeal from Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's order denying a petition to quash an IRS summons. n1 We conclude that: (i) the attorney-client privilege was not waived by appellants' provision of documents to a consortium of banks ("Consortium") sharing a common legal interest in the tax treatment of a refinancing and corporate restructuring resulting from an ill-fated acquisition originally financed by the Consortium; and (ii) the work-product doctrine protects documents analyzing the tax treatment of the refinancing and restructuring prepared in anticipation of litigation with the IRS. We therefore vacate and remand.

So, how did the 2d Circuit justify that holding?  The opinion is relatively short, so that is the best source for its reasoning.  At the risk of oversimplification, I offer my short analysis of the points I think appropriate.

Schaeffler, a U.S. resident (perhaps not citizen), was 80% owner of a German corporation which attempted to acquire a minority interest in another German corporation by a tender offer.  German law requires such tender offers to at least offer to acquire all shares.  The offer, unfortunately, was made just before the 2008 financial crisis, hence "far more shareholders than expected or desired accepted [4]  the offer, leaving the Schaeffler Group the owner of nearly 89.9% of outstanding Continental AG shares."  The net result was that the Schaeffler Group had to re-group, so to speak, or refinance with its committed lenders.  That created a potential bust in the financing as a result of the decline in the market and German law.  That required coordination among all parties, including Schaeffler and the coordination in order to respond to the crisis.

From that re-grouping and refinancing and sharing among the parties of information, documents and legal analysis, this dispute arose.  Did that sharing among parties with a common legal interest waive the privileges -- attorney-client and work product?

The issue presented a subtlety in the application of the attorney-client privilege in a common-interest situation.  What exactly does it mean that sharing of otherwise attorney-client or work product privileged information among persons with a common interest preserves the privileges from waiver?  The opinion does not provide any black letter law on that issue, but does address the issue in the specific context before it.

The Second Circuit described the common interest rule as follows (omitting all citations and most quotation marks for easier readability):

While the privilege is generally waived by voluntary disclosure of the communication to another party, the privilege is not waived by disclosure of communications to a party that is engaged in a “common legal enterprise” with the holder of the privilege. Such disclosures remain privileged where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel in the course of an ongoing common enterprise and multiple clients share a common interest about a legal matter. The need to protect the free flow of information from client to attorney logically exists whenever multiple clients share a common interest about a legal matter. 

Parties may share a “common legal interest” even if they are not parties in ongoing litigation. The common-interest-rule serves to protect the confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a  joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel. It is therefore unnecessary that there be actual litigation in progress for the common interest rule of the attorney-client privilege to apply. However, only those communications made in the course of an ongoing common enterprise and intended to further the enterprise are protected. The dispositive issue is, therefore, whether the Consortium's common interest with appellants was of a sufficient legal character to prevent a waiver by the sharing of those communications.

The Saltzman Tax Procedure treatise, here, has a good discussion of the common interest rule.  Saltzman and Book, Tax Practice and Procedure, ¶ 13.04[3][a][viii][A] Express waiver [of the attorney-client privilege].

The TFRP and the § 6751(b) Requirement for Supervisor Written Approval (11/9/15)

In United States v. Rozbruch, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19223 (2d Cir. 2105), here, a nonprecedential opinion, the Second Circuit sustained the district court's holding that the TFRP penalty in the case under § 6672, here, did not fail the requirement in § 6751(b), here, for the written approval of "the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate."  The Court's holding is cryptic, so I will include the entire discussion of the argument on appeal:

Appellants argue that the District Court erred in holding that TFRPs imposed pursuant to Section 6672(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6672(a), do not trigger the written supervisory approval requirement of Section 6751(b)(1), id. § 6751(b)(1). But even assuming, without deciding, that TFRPs are governed by Section 6751(b)(1), the record here nevertheless supports a finding that the Government functionally satisfied Section 6751(b)(1)'s written supervisory approval requirement. Thus, we affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment, which reduced to judgment Appellants' unpaid TFRPs. See Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[W]e are free to affirm a decision on any grounds supported in the record, even if it is not one on which the trial court relied.").

Apparently the Court cited Thyroff because the district court had not held for the Government based on functional satisfaction of § 6751(b)'s requirement.

The briefs are helpful in understanding how the Court threaded the needle to get to a summary affirmance while avoiding having to decide whether the TFRP was even subject to § 6751(b).  The briefs are here.

• Appellant's opening brief, here.
• Appellee U.S. Answering brief, here.
• Appellant's reply brief, here.

The gravamen of of the Appellant's argument is that the TFRP is a penalty subject to § 6751(b) because Congress said the TFRP is a penalty.  Appellant does make some policy arguments, but the force of the argument is that the TFRP is a penalty because Congress said so.  And this is true even though it functions, unlike other penalties, as simply a collection mechanism.  The Government's argument is that, although labeled a penalty, it is really just a fall-back collection device for the trust fund tax that was not withheld and paid over.  The applicability of § 6751(b) to the TFRP has not yet been decided, so, rather than decide the issue, the Court said that, even § 6751(b) did apply, there was functional satisfaction of the requirement.  I presume functional satisfaction is something like substantial compliance.  The reason, as recounted in more detail in the Government brief is that manager level approval was given in the process required to approve the TFRP.

Here is the relevant portion of the argument from the Government's brief (pp. 9-10):