Let's Connect  778-565-4700

Patrola Law

Business Lawyers in Surrey, B.C., Canada
  • About
    • FAQ
  • Services
    • Business
      • Buying/Selling a Business
      • Incorporations
      • Trademarks
      • Corporate Governance
      • Corporate Reorganization
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Securities
    • Contracts & Agreements
      • Shareholder Agreements
      • Partnership/JV Agreements
      • Lease Agreements
      • Franchise Agreements
      • Buy Sell Agreements
      • Employment Contracts
      • Contract Negotiations
    • Employment & Litigation
      • Employment & Labour
      • Employment Contracts
      • Civil Litigation
      • Small Claims
    • Immigration
      • Business Immigration
    • Real Estate
      • Commercial & Residential
      • Lease Agreements
    • Wills & Estates
      • Estate Planning
      • Probate and Estate Administration
    • Industry
      • Dental Law
      • Blockchain Law
  • Lawyers
    • Perpinder Singh Patrola
    • Sundeep Singh Gill
    • Simon Joo
    • Suprina Bassi
  • Blog
  • Contact
August 8, 2016

Confidentiality Agreements and Future Hostile Bids

Last updated on September 28th, 2021 at 11:31 am

Relatively recent jurisprudence in Canada and the U.S. has had an impact on how confidentiality agreements and standstill agreements are negotiated and considered, with respect to future hostile bid situations.

On January 19, 2009, Justice Alexandra Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court held that RIM was in breach of confidentiality agreements between RIM and Certicom and therefore was permanently ordered against proceeding with its take-over bid for Certicom.  Interestingly, the standstill agreement between RIM had Certicom had expired about six months prior to when RIM launched its take-over bid.  However, the two companies had confidentiality agreements in effect at the time of the takeover. Justice Hoy’s decision has had an effect on the negotiation of confidentiality and standstill agreements.

On May 4, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an injunction against a hostile take-over bid by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. for Vulcan Materials Company after finding that Martin Marietta breached the terms of a confidentiality agreement between the two companies. This occurred despite the absence of a standstill provision.

These cases highlight the importance of carefully drafted confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements and indicate that a party to any such agreement may not be able to commence a hostile take-over bid simply due to the absence of a standstill provision.

confidentiality agreements, business law, corporate law

Best Business of 2022

Patrola Law - Best Business of 2022

Patrola Law is proud to be selected as one of the best law firms in Surrey on Three Best Rated in the following categories:

Best Business lawyers in Surrey
 

Best Intellectual property lawyers in Surrey

questions_cta

 

Categories

  • Starting a Business (37)
  • Growing a Business (8)
  • Buying/Selling a Business (6)
  • Legal Support (92)
    • Franchising (4)
    • Corporate Law (23)
      • Incorporations (11)
    • Intellectual Property (27)
    • Employment Law (20)
      • Korean ( 한국어) (5)
    • Litigation (1)
    • Blockchain (9)
    • Dental Law (4)
    • Real Estate Law (5)
    • Securities (1)
    • Wills & Estates (5)
  • Legislation Updates (12)
Patrola Law © 2025
Privacy Policy
Call us now
Schedule Call Now