作者: Kit Addleman Kurt Gottschall Timothy Newman
在2024年1月16日宣布的一项执法案件中，美国证券交易委员会（下称“SEC”）继续拓宽吹哨人保护规则的应用范围，以防止任何个人或实体阻碍举报行为。该案中，SEC宣布对一家双重注册的投资顾问和证券经纪人处以1,800万美元的民事罚款，指控该公司与散户达成的和解和豁免协议中的保密条款阻碍了潜在的举报人，因而违反了SEC的吹哨人阻碍规则。在和解令中，SEC认为，尽管该公司的标准和解和豁免条款允许客户回应SEC的询问，但这些协议仍然违反了禁止阻碍举报人的规定，因为协议规定客户不得主动联系SEC。
SEC对阻碍举报人规则的最新扩大适用对资产管理公司、上市公司和类似私营公司的一个警示。SEC着重审查的类似合同条款，通常包含在金融服务行业与散户达成的和解和豁免协议中。SEC执法可能会继续对和解合同和其他合同中可能阻碍举报人的条款进行扩大解释。
在美国的资产管理公司、上市公司及私营公司均需要对SEC有关阻碍吹哨人的规则扩大适用案例提起重视，对公司格式文本的措辞更加慎重。如想进一步了解这一案件的详细分析可以阅读下文海博律师的详细解读。
In an enforcement case announced Jan. 16, 2024, the SEC continued its expansive application of Whistleblower Protection Rules preventing any person or entity from impeding whistleblowing. The SEC announced settled charges and imposed an $18 million civil penalty against a dually registered investment adviser and broker-dealer alleging that confidentiality provisions in the firm’s settlement and release agreements with retail clients impeded potential whistleblowers in violation of SEC rules. In the settled order, (Note 1) the SEC alleged that even though the firm’s standard settlement and release terms permitted clients to respond to SEC inquiries, the agreements nonetheless ran afoul of rules against impeding whistleblowers because they did not permit clients to voluntarily contact the SEC.
The SEC’s newest application of the rule against impeding whistleblowers is a warning to asset managers, public companies, and private companies alike. Contractual provisions similar to those under SEC scrutiny are routinely included in settlement and release agreements with retail clients across the financial services industry. The SEC Enforcement program will likely continue its aggressive interpretation of relevant rules to any number of settlements and contractual provisions that could potentially impede whistleblowers.
The SEC’s Rule Preventing Action to Impede Whistleblowers
The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to add Section 21F-17, which was intended to encourage whistleblowers to report possible securities law violations to the SEC. Among other things, Section 21F-17 provides financial incentives and confidentiality protections to whistleblowers. The SEC subsequently adopted Rule 21F-17(a) (aka the “Whistleblower Impeding Rule”), which provides in relevant part:
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. (Note 2)
The SEC’s Enforcement Division has been extraordinarily aggressive in enforcing the Whistleblower Impeding Rule, bringing cases for separation agreements or compliance policies that contained language potentially impeding whistleblowers, even in instances when the agency acknowledged that no evidence suggested whistleblowers had actually been impeded. (Note 3)
Previously, Whistleblower Impeding Rule cases stemmed from alleged violative language in employee separation agreements (Note 4) and legal and compliance training materials, (Note 5) as well as the removal of a whistleblower’s access to company systems. (Note 6) While the Commission had previously alleged that settlement agreement provisions with a private company’s investors violated the Whistleblower Impeding Rule (Note 7), since the rule’s adoption in July 2010, the agency had not alleged violations relating to confidentiality provisions in settlement and release agreements between an SEC registrant and its retail clients.
The SEC’s Recent Enforcement Action
The SEC’s most recent case is groundbreaking because it alleged that a relatively common type of settlement and release confidentiality provision may violate the Whistleblower Impeding Rule. According to the order, in the periodic settlement of minor disputes with retail clients, the respondent firm routinely offered payments or credits ranging from $1,000 to $165,000, and in return asked clients to sign a release of liability provision. The firm’s standard release also contained the following confidentiality provision:
[the client] shall keep this Agreement confidential and not use or disclose (including but not limited to, media statements, social media, or otherwise) the allegations, facts, contentions, liability, damages, or other information relating in any way to the Account, including but not limited to, the existence or terms of this Agreement.
Notably, the confidentiality provision contained an explicit carve-out for communications with regulators, which stated in relevant part:
Notwithstanding, [client] and [client’s] attorneys are neither prohibited nor restricted from responding to any inquiry about this settlement or its underlying facts by FINRA, the SEC, or any other government entity or self-regulatory organization, or as required by law.
Despite this carve-out for responding to regulators’ inquiries, the settled order alleged that the confidentiality provision violated the Whistleblower Impeding Rule because it had “prohibited clients from affirmatively reporting” potential violations to the Commission staff. As a result of this nuanced distinction, the SEC imposed an $18 million civil penalty against the firm.
Key Takeaways
The Whistleblower Impeding Rule has broad applicability, which includes investment advisers, broker-dealers, public companies and private companies.
The SEC has taken the position that it need not prove that whistleblowers or potential whistleblowers were actually impeded in order to establish a violation of the Whistleblower Impeding Rule.
Language in any form of confidentiality agreement or training materials that prohibits, limits, or arguably dissuades individuals from affirmatively reporting potential securities law violations to the SEC Staff may violate the Whistleblower Impeding Rule. This may include employment agreements, separation agreements, and settlement/release agreements with customers or investors.
The SEC has alleged a variety of common provisions may violate the Whistleblower Impeding Rule, including language that:
Limits information that employees or clients may provide to the SEC.
Requires employees or clients to waive rights to recovery to any monetary recovery in connection with reporting wrongdoing to the government.
Requires employees to notify and/or obtain consent from the company prior to disclosure of information, or to notify the company after being contacted by the government.
Requires employees to affirmatively represent that they have not/will not assist the government in investigations.
Prohibits disclosure of confidential information, without explicit carve-outs for affirmative or voluntary communications to the SEC about possible securities law violations.
Although other factors may weigh against such an approach, one direct way to avoid SEC scrutiny may be to include in relevant agreements affirmative statements that those agreements do not preclude a signatory from reporting suspected violations to government agencies. (Note 8)
1. In the matter of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
2. 17 CFR § 240.21F-17.
3. See, e.g., In the Matter of Activision Blizzard, Inc. at p. 5.
4. In the Matter of D.E. Shaw & Co., L.P.
5. In the Matter of Guggenheim Securities, LLC
6. In the Matter of David Hansen
7. SEC v. Collector’s Coffee, Inc., et al.
美国海博国际律师事务所驻上海代表处
美国海博国际律师事务所（Haynes and Boone, LLP） 是一家在《美国律师》（American Lawyer）排名前百的律师事务所,我们拥有19个办事处，近700名律师，执业范围涉及40个主要的法律领域。《财富》世界500强中20%的企业是我们的客户，我们能够为客户提供全方位的跨境法律服务。我们的客户服务优势，尤其是解决问题的敏锐度和与客户合作的能力，一直驱动着我们不断向前迈进。我们向大中华地区和其他亚洲的客户提供法律服务，且熟悉亚洲业务的运营方式、文化和风俗。我所对于客户开展亚洲业务以及亚洲公司进军美国和全球市场方面有丰富的经验.
奖项及荣誉
BTI Consulting Group
卓越的服务在BTI咨询集团2022客户服务A组调查中获得认可，并荣获“最佳推荐律所”
Global M&A Network
美国ATLAS 2023
年度石油及天然气交易奖
美国ATLAS 2022
The M&A Advisor
年度最佳私募股权交易2023 (最大: 1亿美元)
年度最佳私募股权交易2022 (最大: 1亿美元)
年度最佳跨境交易2022（最大：2500万美元）
年度最佳并购交易 2023 (最大: 5000万美元)
扫描二维码了解更多信息