What to Know Before Signing a Commercial Nondisclosure Agreement
Entities that are about to enter a partnership, merge or perform a transaction would be well-advised to get up to speed on how they handle commercial nondisclosure agreements (NDAs).
November 21, 2019 at 11:50 AM
5 minute read
Gary M. Sanderson, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott
In the increasingly competitive and globalized market, information is sacred. Companies secure it physically, digitally and in the minds of employees. As such, entities that are about to enter a partnership, merge or perform a transaction would be well-advised to get up to speed on how they handle commercial nondisclosure agreements (NDAs).
NDAs are legal contracts between parties that determine what information is deemed confidential and must be kept private. By their very nature, they are circulated prior to the parties actually agreeing to any business terms or sharing any information as part of a proposed transaction. Often, they are not given much thought, as the companies may be focused on the substance of the transaction and may not want to appear hard to work with by seeking massive revisions on what may be their introductory set of documents. Yet, this reluctance to review and revise an NDA can be a major error.
Who's Sharing Information
When receiving a proposed commercial NDA, the first matter to determine is whether it is a unilateral or mutual NDA. Unilateral NDAs generally only provide for the confidentiality and nondisclosure of one party's material, which can be appropriate when only one party is sharing information. More common, both parties will be sharing information with one another in an effort to decide if they should do business with each other. As such, a mutual NDA would be more appropriate to ensure both parties' information is validly protected. It would be a critical mistake for a party to blindly sign a unilateral NDA, yet mutually share information, and believe that it was protected.
What Is Being Shared—And With Whom
Another aspect of the NDA that the parties should carefully analyze is the definition of what information must be kept confidential, what information may be excluded and who will have access to the information. Defining what information is to be kept confidential varies widely based on the type of transaction and industry. It is often suggested that parties define what must be kept confidential broadly, but only disclose the minimum that is needed for review in the proposed transaction. Defining confidential information broadly helps protect information that may have been inadvertently disclosed as part of a large batch of data, even though it may not have been pertinent to the transaction. In some instances, it is important for the parties to negotiate certain permitted disclosures, which often involve sharing information with representatives, such as accountants or attorneys of the company, or when compelled by law or if the information becomes public knowledge.
What Damages Can Look Like
One of the more prominent—and certainly costly—recent cases involving the breach of an NDA was ZeniMax Media v. Oculus VR. ZeniMax sued the virtual reality technology company after alleging Oculus founder Palmer Luckey breached an NDA and misappropriated trade secrets, among other accusations. A federal jury ruled in favor of ZeniMax, apportioning $200 million (out of the total verdict of $500 million) for breach of the NDA. Facebook, which bought Oculus for $2 billion not long before the lawsuit, eventually settled the dispute for $250 million.
That was an extreme example of damages from NDA litigation, but the agreement itself was standard—notably, there was a clear definition of "proprietary information" and a statement that the information was to remain the property of the disclosing party. Although a massive company like Facebook can weather a quarter-billion-dollar verdict, many smaller companies might not have the money to survive a lawsuit over a breached NDA if the information is valuable enough.
What Happens at the End
Parties should also think about what should occur at the end of the arrangement, whether by expiration or termination. Companies should consider adding a provision requiring that the disclosed information be destroyed or returned to the disclosing party. It is also recommended that the parties ensure that the time periods for the nondisclosure agreements align with the companies' corporate needs. For example, some standard NDAs only require the parties keep the information confidential for a year or two. Some companies may want to negotiate a far longer period of confidentiality.
And in the event of a breach of the NDA, it is vitally important that the disclosing party require a provision allowing for injunctive relief to stop or minimize the effects of a leak of information. The disclosure of sensitive information may not cause immediate quantifiable damages, but it must be stopped, or it could be catastrophic for companies in certain industries.
Addressing these issues initially may be more effort but will reduce risk and save companies valuable time and money down the road. An attorney experienced in contracts between businesses will be able to help draft a commercial NDA and put minds at ease.
Gary M. Sanderson is an attorney with Pittsburgh-based law firm Meyer, Unkovic & Scott. He focuses his practice on a wide range of business matters and works with new and established companies to navigate complex transactions and disputes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/38/82/ff7b611443519b770a19692401f4/weilheimer-neary-henry-767x633.jpg)
Pa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
![The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal' The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/01/Philadelphia-City-Hall-08-767x633.jpg)
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute read![Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ba/3b/495247be47fe8b0ba5fcd60e024b/citizens-bank-sign-767x633.jpg)
Federal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute read![Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/399/2024/07/18-wheeler-semi-truck-767x633.jpg)
Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Thursday Newspaper
- 2Public Notices/Calendars
- 3Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-117
- 4Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 5Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250