Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 MAY 2012

New Guidance On Confidentiality Agreements

Ropes & Gray LLP
Ropes & Gray LLP
Contributor
Ropes & Gray LLP

Ropes & Gray LLP

Ropes & Gray is one of the world’s most respected law firms, with offices in key business and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Ropes & Gray LLP

A recent opinion regarding the enforcement of certain provisions commonly found in confidentiality agreements in the context of a hostile takeover provides important guidance on the drafting process.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Ropes & Gray LLP'S Private Equity Practice
Ropes & Gray LLP'S Private Equity Practice
Author LinkedIn connections

A recent opinion regarding the enforcement of certain provisions commonly found in confidentiality agreements in the context of a hostile takeover provides important guidance on the drafting process of such agreements. In Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Company, C.A. 7102-CS (Del. Ch. 2012), the Delaware Court of Chancery (Chancellor Strine) found that the use of information received by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta") under a confidentiality agreement in pursuit of a hostile bid to acquire Vulcan Materials Company ("Vulcan") violated that confidentiality agreement. The companies are the two largest construction materials suppliers in the United States. After a long history of discussions about a potential merger, Martin Marietta and Vulcan entered into a nondisclosure agreement (the "NDA"), and a common interest, joint defense and confidentiality agreement (the "JDA," together with the NDA, collectively, the "Confidentiality

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from