trade draft

Basic Incorporated was a publicly traded company primarily engaged in manufacturing chemical refractories for the steel industry. As early as 1965 or 1966 Combustion Engineering expressed interest in acquiring Basic but was deterred by antitrust concerns. In 1976 regulatory action removed the antitrust barrier and Combustion's strategic plan listed an objective to acquire Basic for thirty million dollars. Beginning in September 1976 Combustion representatives met and spoke by telephone with Basic officers and directors about a possible merger. During 1977 and 1978 Basic issued three public statements denying that merger negotiations were under way. On December 18 1978 Basic asked the New York Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares and announced it had been approached by another company concerning a merger. The next day Basic's board endorsed Combustion's offer of forty-six dollars per share. On December 20 1978 Basic publicly announced approval of Combustion's tender offer for all outstanding shares. Respondents are former Basic shareholders who sold their stock after Basic's October 21 1977 public statement and before the December 1978 trading suspension. Respondents brought a class action against Basic and its directors alleging that the three statements violated section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by misleading the market and causing sales at artificially depressed prices. The District Court certified the class under a presumption of reliance but granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that any misstatements were immaterial. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Upjohn Co. manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals in the United States and abroad. In January 1976, independent accountants conducting an audit of one of Upjohn's foreign subsidiaries discovered that the subsidiary had made payments to or for the benefit of foreign government officials in order to secure government business. The accountants informed Gerard Thomas, Upjohn's Vice President, Secretary, and General Counsel. Thomas is a member of the Michigan and New York Bars and had served as General Counsel for twenty years. Thomas consulted with outside counsel and R. T. Parfet, Jr., Upjohn's Chairman of the Board. It was decided that the company would conduct an internal investigation of what were termed questionable payments. As part of this investigation, the attorneys prepared a letter containing a questionnaire that was sent to all foreign general and area managers over the Chairman's signature. The letter noted recent disclosures that several American companies had made possibly illegal payments to foreign government officials. It stated that Thomas had been asked to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and magnitude of any such payments. Managers were instructed to treat the investigation as highly confidential and to send responses directly to Thomas. Thomas and outside counsel also interviewed the recipients of the questionnaire and thirty-three other Upjohn officers or employees. On March 26, 1976, Upjohn voluntarily submitted a preliminary report to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K disclosing the questionable payments. A copy of the report was simultaneously submitted to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS immediately began an investigation to determine the tax consequences of the payments. On November 23, 1976, the Service issued a summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602 demanding production of the records described in the summons. The records included written questionnaires sent to managers of the Upjohn Company's foreign affiliates. They also included memorandums or notes of the interviews conducted in the United States and abroad with officers and employees of the Upjohn Company and its subsidiaries. Upjohn declined to produce the documents specified in the summons on the grounds that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege and constituted attorneys' work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. On August 31, 1977, the United States filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan seeking enforcement of the summons under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a). The district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation that the summons should be enforced. Upjohn appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit rejected the magistrate's finding of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. However, it held that the privilege did not apply to the extent the communications were made by officers and agents not responsible for directing Upjohn's actions in response to legal advice. The court remanded to the district court for a determination of who was within the control group. In a footnote, the court stated that the work-product doctrine is not applicable to administrative summonses issued under 26 U.S.C. § 7602. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.