3 ms·
Half the consequences that you cite in defense of non-disclosures, are perfectly legitimate issues for the company to have to deal with. Why should they be spar
by car_analogy 5y ago
Half the consequences that you cite in defense of non-disclosures, are perfectly legitimate issues for the company to have to deal with. Why should they be spared bad PR or regulatory inquiries, if they're based on true claims?
It still looks like cover-up to me, no matter how standard.
Something is not clear to me, however: Are you implying a non-disclosure agreement could forbid contacting the relevant regulatory authority? Or merely that the media publicity could spur an investigation, where an individual informant would be ignored?
- q1w2 5y agoYou're missing the point. There are a myriad of reasons for the non-disclosure - some you agree with and some you don't. The point is that lawyers include it as a standard in nearly all kinds of agreements. ...it's not even limited to settlements. Regular contracts often have them. It's just normal business practice. It's done because, as you know, anything you say, no matter how innocent, can be used against you in a court of law - whether misconstrued or not. Thus lawyers almost always include a non-disclosure clause. This, on its own, should not lead you to believe the company is covering anything up. ...and to answer your last question, no, non-disclosure agreements do not prevent you from speaking to regulatory authorities.