In In re: China Medical Technologies, Inc., 522 B.R. 28 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 2014), the court held that, although a Liquidator has the authority to waive privileges held by the liquidating debtor, the Liquidator did not have authority to waive privileges that were held by the debtor’s Audit Committee. As a foreign issuer of securities traded on NASDAQ, the debtor was required by NASDAQ rules to establish an Audit Committee that complied with independence requirements set forth under NASDAQ rules. In 2009, debtor’s auditor received an anonymous letter alleging financial wrongdoing by the debtor. As a result of the letter, and at the auditor’s request, the Audit Committee retained outside counsel to conduct an investigation; counsel retained a financial consultant to provide forensic analysis to assist counsel in its investigation. Here, the Liquidator subpoenaed both the outside firm and the consultant for documents related to the investigation. The firm and consultant asserted the attorney-client privilege on behalf of the Audit Committee. The court denied the Liquidator’s motion to compel. The court explained that, although the Liquidator had the authority to waive the debtor’s privileges, that authority did not extend to the privileges held by the debtor’sindependent Audit Committee. Although the Audit Committee was a committee of debtor’s board of director’s, under NASDAQ rules it was required to have sufficient independence to engage its own counsel and communicate confidentially, protected from scrutiny and interference from the debtor’s board. The court found that granting the Liquidator’s motion would undermine the confidence of audit committees that their communications with counsel will remain privileged even after the debtor’s bankruptcy.