Search form

Confidentiality Agreements May Violate Dodd-Frank Act

By Richard J. Cino, David R. Jimenez and Joseph C. Toris
  • April 2, 2015

The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed, and settled, its first administrative proceeding and enforcement action against an employer under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (DFA), based on the employer’s use of a form confidentiality agreement. The SEC asserted that certain language in the employer’s agreement could impede communications between employees and the Commission’s staff about securities law violations. 

Among other things, the DFA established the statutory framework for the SEC’s whistleblower program. After developing and implementing the program, the SEC said that it would turn its focus to employer agreements — whether separation agreements, confidentiality agreements, or other restrictive agreements — that may operate to bar or chill an employee from calling the Commission’s Whistleblower Program. 

Based on the enabling language of the DFA, the SEC adopted Rule 21F-17, which provides, in relevant part: 

(a) No person may take any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement … with respect to such communications.

In this first enforcement action, the confidentiality agreement at issue was used by the employer in connection with its internal investigations. The agreement reminded employees that they are not to discuss the interview or the subject matter of the interview without prior law department authorization. 

Under the terms of the settlement, the employer is required to contact employees who signed the form agreement over the past four years and clarify that they need not seek permission from the employer or its law department before communicating with any government agency or entity, including the Department of Justice, the SEC, the Congress, and any agency Inspector General regarding possible violations of federal law or regulation. 

Although many employers were aware of both the DFA rule and the SEC’s stated plan to enforce it prior to this development, it was unclear how the SEC would seek to enforce Rule 21F-17. This action , therefore, puts employers on notice that they should consider reviewing and, if necessary, revising, employee agreements (especially frequently used templates) that contain restrictive terms, including employment agreements, standalone confidentiality agreements, non-competition agreements, confidentiality policies within handbooks or codes of conduct, and confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in separation agreements. 

The Jackson Lewis Corporate Governance and Internal Investigations practice represents employers against Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower claims and conducts internal investigations. 

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 27, 2017

Supreme Court Preview: 2017-2018 Term

September 27, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court will begin its 2017-2018 Term with no shortage of cases significant to employers and businesses. Cases to watch involve questions about employment arbitration agreements, Dodd-Frank Act’s protections of internal whistleblowers, and state laws barring discrimination against LGBTQ people. Arbitration Agreements... Read More

July 18, 2017

Supreme Court Set to Decide Whether Dodd-Frank Protects Internal Whistleblowers

July 18, 2017

On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Dodd-Frank Act’s whistleblower anti-retaliation provisions protect employees who only complain internally to their employer, but do not complain directly to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In doing so, the Court may resolve a more than year old split among... Read More

December 13, 2016

Bill Would Limit Applicability of Dodd-Frank Act to Certain Financial Institutions

December 13, 2016

A bill in Congress would significantly amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111–203) to change what institutions might be designated a systemically important risk requiring additional scrutiny. This change may result in reduced regulation of smaller banks. The “Systemic Risk... Read More