Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis
89 N.Y.2d 123, 674 N.E.2d 663, 651 N.Y.S.2d 954 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a corporation is acquired through a merger and its business operations continue under new management, control of the attorney-client privilege over pre-merger communications related to general business operations passes to the new management. However, the privilege concerning communications about the merger negotiations themselves remains with the selling shareholder, whose interests were aligned with the selling corporation against the buyer.
Facts:
- Meyner and Landis (M&L), a law firm, began representing Tekni-Plex, Inc. (old Tekni-Plex) in 1971 on various matters, including environmental compliance.
- In 1986, Tom Y. C. Tang became the sole shareholder, president, and sole director of old Tekni-Plex.
- M&L also represented Tang individually on several personal matters during this time.
- In March 1994, Tang and old Tekni-Plex, both represented by M&L, entered into a merger agreement to sell the company to TP Acquisition Company (Acquisition) for $43 million.
- Acquisition was a shell corporation that, after the merger, assumed old Tekni-Plex's assets and liabilities, changed its name to Tekni-Plex, Inc. (new Tekni-Plex), and continued its business operations.
- The merger agreement contained representations and warranties by Tang that old Tekni-Plex was in full compliance with environmental laws, along with an indemnification clause for any breaches.
- After the sale, new Tekni-Plex alleged that Tang had breached these environmental warranties, specifically regarding emissions from a laminator machine at a company facility.
- Tang retained M&L to represent him in the ensuing dispute with new Tekni-Plex.
Procedural Posture:
- New Tekni-Plex initiated an arbitration proceeding against Tang, alleging breach of warranties contained in the Merger Agreement.
- In the arbitration, New Tekni-Plex moved to disqualify M&L from representing Tang, but the arbitrator determined he lacked authority to rule on the motion.
- New Tekni-Plex filed a suit in the New York Supreme Court (a trial court) seeking an order to disqualify M&L from representing Tang.
- The Supreme Court granted New Tekni-Plex's motion, disqualifying M&L, enjoining the firm from disclosing information, and ordering it to return old Tekni-Plex's files.
- Tang and M&L appealed, and the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's order.
- Tang and M&L then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
After a corporate acquisition, does the new management control the pre-merger attorney-client privilege of the acquired company for all matters, including both general business operations and the merger negotiations themselves, thus requiring disqualification of the selling shareholder's long-time counsel who previously represented the acquired company on those matters?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Kaye
No, the new management does not control the privilege for all matters. While the buyer gains control over the attorney-client privilege for general pre-merger business operations, the seller retains control over communications concerning the merger transaction itself; however, counsel's prior representation on the operational matters creates a conflict of interest that requires disqualification. The court reasoned that the transfer of the attorney-client relationship turns on the 'practical consequences' of the transaction. Here, since the business of old Tekni-Plex continued under new management, new Tekni-Plex stands in the shoes of the former client regarding operational matters like environmental compliance. Because M&L advised old Tekni-Plex on these very matters, which are substantially related to the current dispute, and the interests of new Tekni-Plex (as the former client) are adverse to Tang's, M&L is disqualified. However, for communications regarding the merger negotiations, the interests of old Tekni-Plex and Tang were aligned against the buyer, Acquisition. To allow the buyer to access those communications would be inequitable and would chill frank attorney-client discussion during future transactions. Therefore, control of the privilege is bifurcated: new management controls the privilege for general operations, while the seller controls the privilege for the merger transaction.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical distinction in the transfer of attorney-client privilege following a corporate merger, preventing a blanket transfer to the acquiring entity. By bifurcating control of the privilege—granting the buyer control over operational matters while leaving the seller with control over transaction-related communications—the court protects selling shareholders from having their own deal negotiations used against them by the buyer. This nuanced approach has significant implications for transactional law, requiring lawyers to carefully delineate their representation and manage potential conflicts when advising both a company and its owner in a sale. The ruling provides a clearer framework for determining privilege ownership in post-merger disputes, balancing the buyer's need to manage the ongoing business with the seller's right to defend the integrity of the transaction.
Unlock the full brief for Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis