Featured Publications

Holland & Knight Attorneys Nominated for ICABA's™ 'South Florida's 100 Most Accomplished Blacks' and 'Rising Stars'

Holland & Knight Attorneys Nominated for ICABA's™ 'South Florida's 100 Most Accomplished Blacks' and 'Rising Stars'

More

Private Wealth Services: Newsletter - November 2009

There has been considerable debate on Capitol Hill this year over the taxation of a Carried Interest in the context of a Private Equity Fund (PEF). At the same time, there has been public discussion of the role that the private equity industry will have in our economic recovery. In the realm of estate planning, PEF Principals possess unique opportunities to shift the performance of their interest in a PEF to future generations – potentially resulting in very significant estate tax savings. This article will review the basic PEF structure, describe the nature of a Principal’s interest in a PEF and indentify wealth transfer techniques that should be considered by a Principal.

More

Search Our Library

Search

  • Print Article
  • Email this page to a friend
  • Print Newsletter / Alert
Media and Communications
Newsletter - January/February 2007
 
In this Issue...
D.C. Circuit to Again Rehear Congressman’s Leaked Cell Phone Call Case
 
January 2, 2007
 
Leo Rydzewski - Washington

In a rare procedural move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered a second rehearing en banc to review the decision of a divided panel of the court in a dispute between two congressmen over the leak of an illegally intercepted cell phone call.  The case was brought by Congressman John A. Boehner, a Republican from Ohio.  On December 21, 1996, Representative Boehner, while driving in Florida, participated in a cell phone call with fellow Republican leaders in which they discussed how to address ethics charges pending before then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich.  A Florida couple driving by picked up the call inside their car, taped it, and provided the tape to their congresswoman, who furnished it to Democratic Congressman James A. McDermott of Washington.  McDermott provided the tape to three newspapers and each ran a news story reporting the tape’s contents.

The trial court in Rep. Boehner’s lawsuit last year ruled that Rep. McDermott violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) when he provided the tape to the media.  The ECPA prohibits private parties from intercepting wire, oral and electronic communications, as well as disclosing the contents of such communications if the person knows that it was illegally intercepted.  A panel of the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling last year, upheld the trial court’s decision.  In a separate proceeding, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct concluded that Rep. McDermott violated House ethics standards by giving reporters access to the illegally taped cell phone call because he had risked undermining the ethics process regarding Gingrich. 

The original October 2006 en banc rehearing by the entire D.C. Circuit centered on whether McDermott’s knowledge that the intercepted call was illegal deprived the Democrat of First Amendment protection for disseminating the communication.  In its order setting a second rehearing, the court has asked the parties to brief whether Rep. McDermott had an obligation, under the 1995 Supreme Court decision United States v. Aguilar, not to forward the illegal communication.  In Aguilar, the Supreme Court held that a federal judge had an obligation not to disclose information concerning a secret wiretap, even after the conclusion of the government’s surveillance.

This is the second time that Boehner v. McDermott has been to the D.C. Circuit.  After the trial court originally held in 1998 that Rep. McDermott had a constitutional right to give the tapes to the media, the D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that McDermott’s act was unprotected conduct, not First Amendment protected speech.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted review, but then in 2001 remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit, without issuing a ruling, to reconsider the case in light of another decision in which the Supreme Court held that a Pennsylvania radio-show host had not violated the ECPA when he broadcast an illegally taped cell phone conversation involving a matter of public concern that he received anonymously.

In the ruling that the entire D.C. Circuit is rehearing for the second time, a panel of the D.C. Circuit – over a strong dissent – held that McDermott was liable because he knew who intercepted the telephone call and had actual knowledge that the tape recording was illegally intercepted.  In his dissent, Judge David Sentelle concluded that McDermott’s knowledge was irrelevant to the First Amendment inquiry.  Judge Sentelle concluded that the panel decision was “fraught with danger” because it extends liability beyond the original recipient. The second en banc rehearing, which the court scheduled for January 25, 2007, is highly unusual and suggests that the court may be exploring ways to decide the case on grounds other than the First Amendment. 

For more information, e-mail Leo G. Rydzewski at leo.rydzewski@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500. 

Related Practices