
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: October 11, 2013
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comWith the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) more aggressive enforcement approach, companies need to be aware that, when they turn documents over to the SEC after obtaining a signed confidentiality agreement, they are not getting the SEC’s agreement to refuse to provide to third parties these confidential documents.
In fact, these agreements usually provide less than meaningful protection for the confidentiality of the turned over documents because there is usually a provision granting the SEC the discretion to disclose the submitted materials whenever it chose to do so.
The risks took center stage in Gruss v. Zwirn, which was decided this summer in the Southern District of New York. The case involved allegations of financial improprieties against Daniel Zwirn, the former chief financial officer of hedge fund company Zwirn Entities. After conducting two internal investigations, Zwirn Entities voluntarily turned over information to the SEC, which had launched its own probe.
In a subsequent defamation and breach of contract lawsuit against his former company, Zwirn sought to compel the disclosure of supporting documents from the internal investigation, including notes and summaries of witness interviews. Excerpts of these interviews were provided to the SEC under an agreement that the agency would maintain their confidentiality. Nonetheless, Zwirn Entities maintained that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine.
In his decision, Judge Paul Gardephe held that waiver did occur when the Zwirn Entities disclosed portions of the witness statements to the SEC, overruling a prior ruing by a magistrate judge. As explained by Gardephe, “[t]he confidentiality agreement at issue here provides no meaningful protection to Defendants because – in essence – it grants the SEC discretion to disclose the submitted materials whenever it chooses.”
The bottom-line is that companies must recognize that disclosing the results of an internal investigation to the SEC carries potential risks. Therefore, it is imperative to work with experienced counsel to determine how best to balance confidentiality interests with the need to defend the company of wrongdoing.
If you have any questions about the this case or would like to discuss how it may affect your business, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
With the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) more aggressive enforcement approach, companies need to be aware that, when they turn documents over to the SEC after obtaining a signed confidentiality agreement, they are not getting the SEC’s agreement to refuse to provide to third parties these confidential documents.
In fact, these agreements usually provide less than meaningful protection for the confidentiality of the turned over documents because there is usually a provision granting the SEC the discretion to disclose the submitted materials whenever it chose to do so.
The risks took center stage in Gruss v. Zwirn, which was decided this summer in the Southern District of New York. The case involved allegations of financial improprieties against Daniel Zwirn, the former chief financial officer of hedge fund company Zwirn Entities. After conducting two internal investigations, Zwirn Entities voluntarily turned over information to the SEC, which had launched its own probe.
In a subsequent defamation and breach of contract lawsuit against his former company, Zwirn sought to compel the disclosure of supporting documents from the internal investigation, including notes and summaries of witness interviews. Excerpts of these interviews were provided to the SEC under an agreement that the agency would maintain their confidentiality. Nonetheless, Zwirn Entities maintained that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine.
In his decision, Judge Paul Gardephe held that waiver did occur when the Zwirn Entities disclosed portions of the witness statements to the SEC, overruling a prior ruing by a magistrate judge. As explained by Gardephe, “[t]he confidentiality agreement at issue here provides no meaningful protection to Defendants because – in essence – it grants the SEC discretion to disclose the submitted materials whenever it chooses.”
The bottom-line is that companies must recognize that disclosing the results of an internal investigation to the SEC carries potential risks. Therefore, it is imperative to work with experienced counsel to determine how best to balance confidentiality interests with the need to defend the company of wrongdoing.
If you have any questions about the this case or would like to discuss how it may affect your business, please contact me, Dan Brecher, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!