22
TIL my old company's NDAs might not hold up after that shareholder lawsuit in Delaware last Tuesday
Our legal team swore those documents were airtight, but the judge let the whistleblower testimony slide because the timing of the disclosures was all wrong so which side actually wins when the contract language fails the common sense test - anyone deal with that gray area?
2 comments
Log in to join the discussion
Log In2 Comments
lee.lucas1mo ago
...and that's the thing, isn't it? The timing part. I've been on the other side of that, not with a lawsuit but with a supplier contract that fell apart because the terms were "airtight" on paper but the other guy started talking before the ink was dry. So who really wins when the judge says the contract is fine but the facts on the ground don't match? You say the judge let the whistleblower talk because of timing. What exactly was the timing issue? Was it about when the NDA was signed versus when the information was learned, or was it more about how fast the company acted after the leak?
3
hugo_gonzalez681mo ago
Heard a lawyer on a podcast say airtight contracts are a myth because judges can toss them on 'equitable grounds' if the timing looks shady. Sounds like that's exactly what happened here with the whistleblower.
1