If that is the case, it would have been said more concisely, as I mentioned above. And I would have completely skipped the provision on early termination mentioned later, because an early termination has no influence on the duration of the protection period. There are also other problems with the wording. For example, the agreement may have no obligation to do anything within the meaning of the word « shall ». (a real pet from me). The phrase « full of strength and effect » is a rhetorical flourish that is not necessary because the agreement would never be in force and partly effective. Then, in the best case, it is superfluous and potentially dangerously confusing not to change the word and the number of the two (it happened and there is case law on this idea alone). The first idea is that the agreement starts on the date of entry into force and lasts three years. Thus, from the outset, the words « should » can be simply replaced by the conditional « if ». The independent clause, which contains examples of team agreements or subcontracts, is more rhetorical and is not necessary. There is no reason to insert the parentheses around the letter S, just use the singular « succession agreement ». Write the condition as a clear « yew ». then » instruction.
Finally, the following agreement must refer to the NDA, and in my experience, they almost never do so and almost always contain their own privacy rules. It is therefore preferable to express the most unlikely scenario of the continuation of the NDA if the subsequent agreement does not contain a substantially similar confidentiality provision.