Thought Leadership

SEC Underscores Use of Routine Confidentiality Agreements for Employees May Violate Whistleblower Protection Rules

July 7, 2022 Advisory

For the second time in as many months, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has signaled that it is back in the business of policing the SEC whistleblower protection rules in a broad, prophylactic manner. This time, the SEC underscored that the use of broad nondisclosure agreements, when used at the beginning and end of the employment process, may violate the SEC’s rules designed to protect whistleblowers.

As we noted last month, after adoption of the Whistleblower Rules in May 2011, the SEC brought 12 enforcement actions asserting violations of Exchange Act Rule 21F-17(a), including a number focused on the use of confidentiality agreements that may potentially discourage a whistleblower from communicating with the SEC. Rule 21F-17(a) prohibits taking “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.” That run came to a halt after the U.S Supreme Court overruled a key provision of those rules in 2018. The SEC’s respite has ended. 

Recently, the SEC brought an enforcement action against The Brink’s Company (Brinks).  The SEC found that Brinks’ broad use of confidentiality agreements when employees were onboarding and exiting violated Rule 21F. The confidentiality agreements forbid Brinks’ employees from disclosing to any third parties, without Brinks’ prior consent, non-public and confidential Brinks information, including “financial information including financial information set forth in internal records, files and ledgers incorporated into profit and loss statements, financial reports and business plans.” According to the SEC, the form agreements Brinks used for this purpose failed to provide an express exception that would have permitted current and former employees to disclose such information for reporting suspected securities law violations to the SEC. The SEC concluded that Brinks was on notice of the requirements based on the receipt of a number of attorney advisory alerts from external counsel and its use of a different form of agreement when onboarding new Brinks executives. After receipt of the legal advisories and internal discussion of the issue, Brinks did not fix the problem. Rather, Brinks added to its form agreement clauses requiring the payment of a $75,000 liquidated damages clause and Brinks’ legal fees and expenses for violations of the confidentiality agreements. During the relevant period, Brinks required thousands of its employees to enter into the confidentiality agreements in question.  

To resolve these violations, Brinks was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $400,000. Under the SEC settlement, Brinks is also required to modify its confidentiality agreements to expressly carve out the employees’ ability to report suspected legal violations to state or federal agencies, including the SEC. Brinks is also required to contact and send to all current and former employees a copy of the SEC’s order as well as a notice stating that they are permitted to provide information to the SEC without prior company approval and accept whistleblower awards under the SEC’s Whistleblower Rules. 

Previously, the SEC has taken a prophylactic approach to interpreting Rule 21F-17(a). The SEC applied Rule 21F-17(a) to routine confidentiality agreements, anti-disparagement clauses or internal policies that could theoretically discourage potential whistleblowers from bringing their concerns to the SEC. The Brinks settlement fits that model. As in the past, there were no allegations that Brinks actually sought to enforce the agreements, threatened to enforce the agreements or discouraged any employee from making a report to the SEC.

The Brinks order signals that the SEC five-year period of silence concerning corporate use of broad confidentiality agreements has ended and employers should expect increased enforcement efforts in this space. Given this fact, now is a good time for employers to revisit their confidentiality agreements for onboarding new employees and seek guidance from legal counsel regarding their severance agreements. 

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Denver, CO
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • London, England
  • Miami, FL
  • New York, NY
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE
Worldwide
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
800 Boylston St.
30th Floor
Boston, MA 02199
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Dublin, Ireland
Fitzwilliam Hall, Fitzwilliam Place
Dublin 2, Ireland
Google Maps
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
101 E. High St.
First Floor
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 750
One Summerlin
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
London, England
Royal College of Surgeons of England
38-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields
London, WC2A 3PE
Google Maps
Miami, FL
355 Alhambra Circle
Suite 1250
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Google Maps
Photo of Miami, Florida
New York, NY
7 Times Square, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Google Maps
New York City skyline
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
201 South Main Street
Suite 750
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri
Washington, D.C.
1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Google Maps
Photo of Washington, D.C. with the Capitol in the foreground and Washington Monument in the background.
Wilmington, DE
1007 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Google Maps
Wilmington, Delaware