Template:Onenda 2 summ: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Onenda 2 summ (view source)

Revision as of 16:55, 30 May 2024

2,734 bytes removed ,  30 May
no edit summary
(Created page with "====“Legally required”==== Some disquiet from institutional legal eagles that “legally required” is a little narrow: {{quote|{{OneNDA 2(c)}}}} There are many occasions where regulators ask — firmly — but don’t ''require'' disclosure of information as such: for example, for a review in the context of a competition review of a proposed merger of exchanges. If we take it as a given that the regulators are there as a force for good — even if their well-...")
 
No edit summary
 
Line 53: Line 53:


This is a similar argument, but the way, to the old “[[Reliance on legal advice|not liable for relying on bad legal advice]]” chestnut.
This is a similar argument, but the way, to the old “[[Reliance on legal advice|not liable for relying on bad legal advice]]” chestnut.
===General===
{{confidentiality and regulatory disclosure}}
{{regulator requests}}
====Court proceedings====
Is it any different for court proceedings? Now, my friends, we are deep in anally retentive territory here.<ref>This may seem a rather unsavoury [[metaphor]], but it seems apposite.</ref> If you should find yourself even broaching the question of what one must do when compelled by ''[[sub poena]]'' or court-mandated [[discovery]] to submit another fellow’s {{confiprov|confidential information}} into the hands of your combatants in connection with an unrelated civil proceeding, then the game is up, this is a [[I’m not going to die in a ditch about it|ditch you might, if you insist on it, die in]], and for the betterment of all you should really just surrender and move on, but for what it is worth, it ''is'' arguably different from compulsory disclosure to a regulator:
On one hand:
*A (third party) litigant may be the disclosing party’s competitor, and its intentions may not be as pure as driven snow — a disposition which one can (or has little choice but to) take as read for a regulator;
*The discovery request may thus be an abusive use of a court progress to fish out some commercial material. So one should be on one’s guard and ready to defend it, to the advantage of the disclosing party;
On the other hand:
*It is a compulsory legal process and, at the limit, you can’t stop it;
*A civil litigation between you and some other dude, even if it somehow involves the disclosing party’s {{confiprov|confidential information}}, is generally sensitive and may not be the sort of thing you want the disclosing party to know about: there is a “clash of the confidentialities” here
*As a litigant you will be generally incentivised to resist wider disclosure than is absolutely necessary and so shouldn’t need to have to promise this to the disclosing party. But it is not inconceivable that this confidential agreement ''is'' exactly the ammunition you need to shut down the litigation, so your interests may favour disclosure, while the “discloser’s” may not. You don’t want your confidentiality agreement to crimp your ability to show your best you to the court process.
When all is said and done, these are all ''extraordinarily'' remote and implausible hypotheticals. They neatly illustrate the fatuity of obsessing over the minutiae of an imponderable future, and it pains me to even talk about them. ''However'', it is in just such a fatuous neck of the woods that the [[legal eagle]] likes to build its nest so — unless you want to [[die in a ditch]] in that fatuous neck of the woods (some do; there is no accounting for taste) — you might just take a view and nod along.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/86224"

Navigation menu