Advertisement

May 21, 2013

Shhh…Your Confidentiality Agreement May Not Be Protecting You!

Agreements to restrict the disclosure of certain types of information—often called confidential disclosure agreements (CDAs) or non-disclosure agreements (NDAs)—have become ubiquitous in the daily transaction of business. Even before companies begin discussing opportunities to enter into a business relationship, they generally execute some form of confidentiality agreement.

However, inasmuch as businesses now understand the importance of protecting their valuable information, the actual confidentiality agreements oftentimes do not receive the attention they deserve. As a result, state and federal courts in the United States have been busy finding reasons not to enforce or to limit the enforcement of many such agreements.

Because NDAs tend to be viewed as boilerplate documents, many businesses simply find a generic agreement and stick with it, regardless of the particular circumstances. Worse yet, form agreements may not be well drafted in the first place, which only serves to exacerbate the enforceability issue. In an age when information represents considerable value for many businesses, it is time for the generic confidentiality agreement to graduate to a well-drafted and appropriately tailored business document that maximizes the potential for enforcement of the agreement’s terms.

There are countless factors that should be considered in preparing an appropriate confidentiality agreement to address the variables that exist in any given business situation. However, business owners and their attorneys can start by focusing on several key questions.

1. What information is to be protected?

Defining the information to be protected is fundamental to a well-crafted NDA and an area where many form agreements fall short. For example, some agreements specify a laundry list of information, regardless of whether such information is actually confidential (e.g., patents and trademarks are often included, but neither can be confidential). Other NDAs may simply include language specifying “information that is confidential and proprietary to the disclosing party,” which creates ambiguity in the interpretation of what is truly intended to be covered by the agreement. Worse yet, the latter approach could require that the information meet the definition of a trade secret, which might not be the case for the type of information disclosed and, therefore, could render the confidentiality agreement useless. By contrast, careful consideration of how confidential information is defined can go a long way towards improving enforceability.

2. Who is allowed access to the information?

Many generic confidentiality agreements simply restrict disclosure to third parties. Some even allow disclosure to advisors and consultants who are assisting with the transaction. These limited restrictions may do little to protect a business in certain situations and, in fact, may create an exception to what information is to be kept in confidence under the agreement. Therefore, it is important to consider the practical and legal consequences of all restrictive clauses.

Should the recipient of the information be able to disclose to all employees of the company or just those directly involved in the transaction at hand? What about third-party consultants? From a practical perspective, it may be easier to limit unauthorized disclosure when fewer people have access to the information. Third-party consultants, for example, may not have an obligation of confidentiality to the disclosing party just because of their relationship with the recipient of the information. In fact, disclosure to third parties without an obligation of confidentiality may place the information in the public domain, thus rendering the confidentiality agreement unenforceable against anyone.

Because an NDA, like other agreements, may be assigned to another party to whom the disclosing party may not want to grant access to certain information, it is important to consider restrictions on assignability. A well-drafted restrictive provision not only helps safeguard information, but also facilitates and regulates the flow of information as the parties intended.

3. How long is the information to be kept in confidence?

Businesses often overlook the term of a confidentiality agreement, but many courts focus on that detail in determining enforceability. A number of jurisdictions view agreements without a term limit as terminable at any time or terminable within a reasonable period of time based on the circumstances. Because neither of these results may be desirable, business owners should carefully consider what term would be reasonable for the type of information being disclosed. For example, certain business data may only have a useful life of a year or two, while the formula for manufacturing a product may qualify as a trade secret and be protectible until such information is no longer considered a trade secret. While there is no single right answer for every type of information, setting appropriate term limits may equate to greater enforceability.

The questions above only scratch the surface of the many issues that business owners and their attorneys should consider when crafting an effective and enforceable confidentiality agreement. There is no time like the present to upgrade from a form agreement and begin maximizing protection of one of your most valuable assets: your information.

© 2010 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

About the Author

Much Shelist is a full-service business law firm based in Chicago. Since our founding in 1970, and as we have grown to approximately 85 attorneys, we have nurtured a collaborative culture that emphasizes sophisticated, senior-level attention to client matters, combined with a collegial, creative atmosphere that allows us to deliver the highest level of service to every client. In addition, we are firmly committed to remaining independent, thus creating an environment of stability for our clients and our attorneys.

We serve as...

312-521-2000

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.