Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub

Decision Date29 April 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-261,84-261
Citation105 S.Ct. 1986,85 L.Ed.2d 372,471 U.S. 343
PartiesCOMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Petitioner v. Gary WEINTRAUB et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

Petitioner filed a complaint in Federal District Court alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act by Chicago Discount Commodity Brokers (CDCB), and respondent Frank McGhee, acting as sole director and officer of CDCB, entered into a consent decree that resulted in the appointment of a receiver who was ultimately appointed trustee in bankruptcy after he filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy on behalf of CDCB. Respondent Weintraub, CDCB's former counsel, appeared for a deposition pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum served by petitioner as part of its investigation of CDCB, but refused to answer certain questions, asserting CDCB's attorney-client privilege. Petitioner then obtained a waiver of the privilege from the trustee as to any communications occurring on or before the date of his initial appointment as a receiver. The District Court upheld a Magistrate's order directing Weintraub to testify, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the power to waive a corporate debtor's attorney-client privilege with respect to communications that occurred before the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

Held: The trustee of a corporation in bankruptcy has the power to waive the corporation's attorney-client privilege with respect to prebankruptcy communications. Pp. 348-358.

(a) The attorney-client privilege attaches to corporations as well as to individuals, and with regard to solvent corporations the power to waive the privilege rests with the corporation's management and is normally exercised by its officers and directors. When control of the corporation passes to new management, the authority to assert and waive the privilege also passes, and the new managers may waive the privilege with respect to corporate communications made by former officers and directors. Pp. 348-349.

(b) The Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly address the question whether control of the privilege of a corporation in bankruptcy with respect to prebankruptcy communications passes to the bankruptcy trustee or, as respondents assert, remains with the debtor's directors. Respondents' contention that the issue is controlled by § 542(e) of the Code—which provides that "[s]ubject to any applicable privilege," the court may order an attorney who holds recorded information relating to the debtor's property or financial affairs to disclose such information to the trustee—is not supported by the statutory language or the legislative history. Instead, the history makes clear that Congress intended the courts to deal with privilege questions. Pp. 349-351.

(c) The Code gives the trustee wide-ranging management authority over the debtor, whereas the powers of the debtor's directors are severely limited. Thus the trustee plays the role most closely analogous to that of a solvent corporation's management, and the directors should not exercise the traditional management function of controlling the corporation's privilege unless a contrary arrangement would be inconsistent with policies of the bankruptcy laws. Pp. 352-353.

(d) No federal interests would be impaired by the trustee's control of the corporation's attorney-client privilege with respect to prebankruptcy communications. On the other hand, vesting such power in the directors would frustrate the Code's goal of empowering the trustee to uncover insider fraud and recover misappropriated corporate assets. Pp. 353-354.

(e) There is no merit to respondents' contention that the trustee should not obtain control over the privilege because, unlike the management of a solvent corporation, the trustee's primary loyalty goes not to shareholders but to creditors. When a trustee is appointed, the privilege must be exercised in accordance with the trustee's fiduciary duty to all interested parties. Even though in some cases the trustee's exercise of the privilege will benefit only creditors, such a result is in keeping with the hierarchy of interests created by the bankruptcy laws. Pp. 354-356.

(f) Nor is there any merit to other arguments of respondents, including the contentions that giving the trustee control over the privilege would have an undesirable chilling effect on attorney-client communications and would discriminate against insolvent corporations. The chilling effect is no greater here than in the case of a solvent corporation, and, by definition, corporations in bankruptcy are treated differently from solvent corporations. Pp. 356-358.

722 F.2d 338 (CA7 1984), reversed.

Bruce N. Kuhlik, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.

David A. Epstein, Chicago, Ill., for respondents.

Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question here is whether the trustee of a corporation in bankruptcy has the power to waive the debtor corporation's attorney-client privilege with respect to communications that took place before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.

I

The case arises out of a formal investigation by petitioner Commodity Futures Trading Commission to determine whether Chicago Discount Commodity Brokers (CDCB), or persons associated with that firm, violated the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. CDCB was a discount commodity brokerage house registered with the Commission, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6d(1), as a futures commission merchant. On October 27, 1980, the Commission filed a complaint against CDCB in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Act. That same day, respondent Frank McGhee, acting as sole director and officer of CDCB, entered into a consent decree with the Commission, which provided for the appointment of a receiver and for the receiver to file a petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (Bankruptcy Code). The District Court appointed John K. Notz, Jr., as receiver.

Notz then filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy on behalf of CDCB. He sought relief under Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides for the liquidation of bankrupt commodity brokers. 11 U.S.C. §§ 761-766. The Bankruptcy Court appointed Notz as interim trustee and, later, as permanent trustee.

As part of its investigation of CDCB, the Commission served a subpoena duces tecum upon CDCB's former counsel, respondent Gary Weintraub. The Commission sought Weintraub's testimony about various CDCB matters, including suspected misappropriation of customer funds by CDCB's officers and employees, and other fraudulent activities. Weintraub appeared for his deposition and responded to numerous inquiries but refused to answer 23 questions, asserting CDCB's attorney-client privilege. The Commission then moved to compel answers to those questions. It argued that Weintraub's assertion of the attorney-client privilege was inappropriate because the privilege could not be used to "thwart legitimate access to information sought in an administrative investigation." App. 44.

Even though the Commission argued in its motion that the matters on which Weintraub refused to testify were not protected by CDCB's attorney-client privilege, it also asked Notz to waive that privilege. In a letter to Notz, the Commission maintained that CDCB's former officers, directors, and employees no longer had the authority to assert the privilege. According to the Commission, that power was vested in Notz as the then-interim trustee. Id., at 47-48. In response to the Commission's request, Notz waived "any interest I have in the attorney/client privilege possessed by that debtor for any communications or information occurring or arising on or before October 27, 1980"—the date of Notz' appointment as receiver. Id., at 49.

On April 26, 1982, a United States Magistrate ordered Weintraub to testify. The Magistrate found that Weintraub had the power to assert CDCB's privilege. He added, however, that Notz was "successor in interest of all assets, rights and privileges of CDCB, including the attorney/client privilege at issue herein," and that Notz' waiver was therefore valid. App. to Pet. for Cert. 19a-20a. The District Court upheld the Magistrate's order on June 9. Id., at 18a. Thereafter, Frank McGhee and his brother, respondent Andrew McGhee, intervened and argued that Notz could not validly waive the privilege over their objection. Record, Doc. No. 49, p. 7.1 The District Court rejected this argument and, on July 27, entered a new order requiring Weintraub to testify without asserting an attorney-client privilege on behalf of CDCB. App. to Pet. for Cert. 17a.2

The McGhees appealed from the District Court's order of July 27 and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 722 F.2d 338 (1984). It held that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the power to waive a corporate debtor's attorney-client privilege with respect to communications that occurred before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The court recognized that two other Circuits had addressed the question and had come to the opposite conclusion. See In re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc., 670 F.2d 383 (CA2 1982); Citibank, N.A. v. Andros, 666 F.2d 1192 (CA8 1981).3 We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 469 U.S. 929, 105 S.Ct. 321, 83 L.Ed.2d 259 (1984). We now reverse the Court of Appeals.

II

It is by now well established, and undisputed by the parties to this case, that the attorney-client privilege attaches to corporations as well as to individuals. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). Both for corporations and individuals, the attorney-client privilege serves the function of promoting full and frank communications between attorneys and their clients. It thereby encourages observance of the law and aids in the administration of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
822 cases
  • In Re Valley Health System
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Ninth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Central District of California
    • April 8, 2010
    ...the corporation, its creditors and shareholders, fall upon the officers and directors. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 355, 105 S.Ct. 1986, 85 L.Ed.2d 372 (1985) (stating that “the debtor's directors bear essentially the same fiduciary obligation to creditor......
  • In re Blount, Case No. 14-21449 (JNP)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Jersey
    • November 16, 2020
    ...a trustee has a fiduciary duty to maximize the value of the estate. 509 B.R. at 201 (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 353, 105 S.Ct. 1986, 85 L.Ed.2d 372 (1985) ). Thus, the proper scheduling of the estimated value of the assets is also, to some extent, a ......
  • In re Fairbanks, Bankruptcy No. 89-10904.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. First Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Hampshire
    • December 20, 1991
    ...the privilege. The landmark case on who holds the attorney-client privilege in bankruptcy is Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 105 S.Ct. 1986, 85 L.Ed.2d 372 (1985). That case held that the trustee of a corporation in bankruptcy has the power to waive the corporat......
  • In re Peak Serum, Inc., Case No. 19-19802-JGR
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Colorado
    • December 8, 2020
    ...creditors." In re Whitney Place Partners , 147 B.R. 619, 620 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1992) (citing Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub , 471 U.S. 343, 105 S.Ct. 1986, 85 L.Ed.2d 372 (1985) ). The Court is hard-pressed to justify how Peak can remain a debtor-in-possession, and how Kutrube......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
13 books & journal articles
  • The Alteration of Ex Ante Agreements by the Bankruptcy Code.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 95 No. 4, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...[section] 101(54)) (quoting McKenzie v. Irving Trust Co., 323 U.S. 365, 369-370 (1945))); Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 351-352 (1985) ("Because the attorney-client privilege is controlled, outside of bankruptcy, by a corporation's management, the actor whose d......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...1983), §4:72.2 Cf. U.S. Football League v. Nat’l Football League , 644 F. Supp. 1040, 1042 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), Form 7-48 CFTC v. Weintraub , 471 U.S. 343 (1986), §4:33 Chakejian v. Equifax Info. Ser’vs LLC , 275 F.R.D. 201, 220 (E.D. Pa. 2011), Form 7-48 Chalmers , 796 F.2d at 1210, Form 7-49 ......
  • Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Immunity
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • January 1, 2013
    ...are to be determined in accordance with state law. 4 1. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). 2. CFTC v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 348 (1985). 3. For more detailed treatments of the attorney-client and work product privileges, see generally ABA SECTION OF LITIGATION, THE......
  • Discovery
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...by counsel, there may be limits on your ability to approach the opposing party’s employees or former employees. See CFTC v. Weintraub , 471 U.S. 343 (1986); Rent Club, Inc. v. TransAmerica Rental Corp. , 811 F.Supp. 651 (M.D. Fla. 1992), aff’d , 43 F.2d 1439 (11th Cir. 1995); ABA Model Rule......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT