82,891
edits
Template:Confi term: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
So must your [[NDA]] have a [[Term of confidentiality|term]]? Some insist on a hard stop, say two years, after which {{confiprov|confidential information}} ''ceases'' to be confidential. | So must your [[NDA]] have a [[Term of confidentiality|term]]? Some insist on a hard stop, say two years, after which {{confiprov|confidential information}} ''ceases'' to be confidential. This seems to us to be artificial. Others may mediate this by “execution of final transaction documents”. | ||
It is not clear ''why'' going live on a transaction should suddenly set the negotiating parties free to spill private beans about each other that they learned in its formation. The theory is possibly that the final deal docs will themselves contain confi provisions which will be more sophisticated and can govern — but at least in the derivatives world, typically they don’t. Go figure. | |||
===Why have a term at all? Good question.=== | ===Why have a term at all? Good question.=== | ||
Many [[Inhouse lawyer|inhouse lawyers]] profess themselves immutably bound to such a term, by internal [[policy]]. They would sooner be broken upon a wheel than let this one go. This [[policy]], they will intuit, dates from the days of the [[First Men]], possibly was the result of a misunderstanding, but in any case subsequently has hardened, encrusted, calcified, petrified, and finally fossilised itself into a layer so deep in the firm’s organisational [[substrate]] that there is no known means of questioning it. In the very act of questioning it invites some kind of opprobrium. If anyone ever did really understand what the issue was, they have long since moved on, or ''been'' moved on, and no-one remains who can recall, much less articulate the original reason for this policy, or why it is still needed now. | Many [[Inhouse lawyer|inhouse lawyers]] profess themselves immutably bound to such a term, by internal [[policy]]. They would sooner be broken upon a wheel than let this one go. This [[policy]], they will intuit, dates from the days of the [[First Men]], possibly was the result of a misunderstanding, but in any case subsequently has hardened, encrusted, calcified, petrified, and finally fossilised itself into a layer so deep in the firm’s organisational [[substrate]] that there is no known means of questioning it. In the very act of questioning it invites some kind of opprobrium. If anyone ever did really understand what the issue was, they have long since moved on, or ''been'' moved on, and no-one remains who can recall, much less articulate the original reason for this policy, or why it is still needed now. | ||