Insights Header image
Insights Header image
Insights Header image

Confidentiality Protections Squashed by SEC

April 2015 Employment and Labour Bulletin and Securities Bulletin 2 minute read

As we noted in a November 2014 bulletin, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is taking an increasingly aggressive approach towards agreements which are seen to potentially constrain whistleblowers from coming forward. This SEC’s rigorous enforcement was made all the more clear when it issued an April 2015 cease-and-desist order (“Order”) and levied a related US$130,000 fine against KBR, Inc.

This recent SEC Order highlights the risks associated with what are arguably common approaches which many listed companies implement. In particular, KBR used a form of confidentiality statement as part of its internal investigations which proved to be problematic.

Prior to asking them questions, KBR investigators required witnesses to sign a pre-interview statement which said that: 1) the contents of the interview could not be discussed with others without the specific advance authorization of the company’s general counsel, and 2) unauthorized disclosure could be grounds for discipline, up to and including termination for cause.

This approach was, said the SEC, a breach of rules which prohibit any actions (even if only via an agreement) which impede a person from reporting securities law violations. The language in the investigator’s required statement was held to undermine the stated legal objective of encouraging reporting to the SEC.

The Order was issued despite the fact that SEC was unable to point to any instances where either: 1) a KBR employee was in fact prevented from directly communicating with SEC staff about potential violations, or 2) the company took action to enforce the agreement or otherwise prevent such communications. In other words, the punishment emerged solely because of the actual or perceived chill which the agreement created.

This development reinforces the prominence which whistleblower protections now enjoy in contemporary workplaces. Even in cases where no actual harm is done, a listed company can face a six figure fine for merely creating the perception of intimidation. While the SEC’s approach is no doubt well intentioned, the practical implications are rather surprising. The Order therefore highlights the need for careful review of corporate approaches to complaints, investigations, protections afforded to complainants, and related employment issues.

by Adam Kline and George Waggott

A Cautionary Note

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2015

Insights (5 Posts)View More

Featured Insight

Unpacking Ontario’s Proposed Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024

Unpacking Ontario's Bill 194: Strengthening Cyber Security and Building Trust in the Public Sector Act, 2024. Key changes & compliance strategies detailed.

Read More
May 17, 2024
Featured Insight

Navigating International Student Worker Restrictions: Post-Expiry Guidelines for Employers

On April 30, 2024, Canada’s temporary waiver allowing international students to exceed 20 hours of work per week expired.

Read More
May 14, 2024
Featured Insight

Understanding the Consumer-Driven Banking Framework: Key Insights from the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No.1

On April 30, the federal government introduced the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, which provides the legislative framework for open banking in Canada.

Read More
May 13, 2024
Featured Insight

Legal Risk Assessments – An Essential Risk Management Tool

The best way to address the legal issues that arise in any business is to focus on their identification and resolution before they become legal problems.

Read More
May 9, 2024
Featured Insight

Jury’s Out: Bench Trials Are In

Ontario courts are leaning towards the elimination of civil jury trials, as evidenced in recent decisions out of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Read More
May 8, 2024