The Real Question re Goldman
Why doesn't Goldman have its employees sign non-disclosure agreements?
« HUD Inspector General fills in some details on robo-signing and other abuses | Main | Promoting Integrity in the UCC Article 9 Recording System »
Why doesn't Goldman have its employees sign non-disclosure agreements?
The comments to this entry are closed.
Credit Slips is pleased to have had the following persons join us as continuing blog authors in the past or as guest bloggers for a week. Their contributions have added new perspectives and ideas to this site, and we thank them for their participation.
PAST REGULAR CONTRIBUTORS
GUEST & OCCASIONAL CONTRIBUTORS
By "Liking" us on Facebook, you will receive excerpts of our posts in your Facebook news feed. (If you change your mind, you can undo it later.) Note that this is different than "Liking" our Facebook page, although a "Like" in either place will get you Credit Slips post on your Facebook news feed.
Yes, that's the real question. Forget trying to screw your clients, why don't you make it so your employees cannot tell anyone about it. Well done Professor.
Do you have any idea if a non-disparagement clause would be enforceable in this instance, let alone actually prevent someone like Greg from publishing what he believes to be the truth? Do you know if Goldman has some similar non-disparagement clause in an employee handbook somewhere? Do you know if some whistleblower law would apply to protect the statements made by Greg notwithstanding some NDA or non-disparagement policy? Those are probably the real questions. Again, well done.
Posted by: scott | March 16, 2012 at 09:27 AM
I don't see what purpose non-disparagement clauses serve when the signatory is wealthy enough to pop their assets into, say, a Manx trust. Greg Smith will never work in the industry again, but that has nothing to do with a non-disparagement clause.
A NDA might trigger a criminal hammer for trade secrets, but I doubt any court would find trade secrets in the op-ed.
Posted by: Ebenezer Scrooge | March 16, 2012 at 09:55 AM
I suspect GS does require NDAs, but NDAs are really only useful as sabers to rattle at the out-horsed, and GS has probably already determined there is no saber it can rattle at Smith and so is falling back on counter-spin.
Posted by: Knute Rife | March 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM
In a criminal lawsuit would a an NDA still give Goldman any protection probably not. And in this case with GS do you want to stir up even more publicity!
Posted by: Incorporation Consultant | March 25, 2012 at 09:02 AM