Tuesday, August 25, 2015 9:27:06 PM
The SEC's current position is that confidentiality agreements (and other non-disclosure and/or non-disparagement provisions in contracts) are unenforceable to prevent the party subject to them from disclosing confidential information to report a violation of law. It has actually been a primary focus of the SEC in 2014-2015, and it made news when it brought its first enforcement action earlier this year. (http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-54.html) The NLRB and the EEOC have a similar focus, and the SEC has recently been issuing subpoenas to a number of large employers seeking copies of employment agreements with an eye toward bringing large enforcement actions.
FINRA has also taken the position that firms may not include provisions in contracts that impede a person’s right to disclose information to FINRA, the SEC, or any federal or state regulatory
agency regarding a securities law violation. FINRA's October 2014 Regulatory Notice 14-40 (https://www.finra.org/industry/notices/14-40), provides
FINRA's position, with respect to settlement agreements at least, is that not only must settlement agreements allow a party to respond to inquiries from government agencies, but they must also allow individuals to initiate direct communication with those agencies “without restriction or condition.”
In the state courts, as always, it's a mixed bag.
Now, keep in mind that as far as the SEC actions go, they mostly involve regulatory moves against employers for including these types of provisions in their employment and/or settlement agreements. This purportedly violates the new SEC Rule 21F-17 that came in the wake of Dodd-Frank, which prohibits any “person” from 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” most confidentiality agreements.
So yes, anyone subject to a confidentiality agreement with a public company is probably more than free (i.e., more like "actively encouraged") to disclose the company's confidential information to the SEC and/or any other appropriate regulatory or law enforcement body, and could even be eligible for a whistleblower reward by doing so. But as for how that issue would play out in a breach of contract action between the parties in a state court, I really can't say.
Avant Technologies Engages Wired4Tech to Evaluate the Performance of Next Generation AI Server Technology • AVAI • May 23, 2024 8:00 AM
Branded Legacy, Inc. Unveils Collaboration with Celebrity Tattoo Artist Kat Tat for New Tattoo Aftercare Product • BLEG • May 22, 2024 8:30 AM
"Defo's Morning Briefing" Set to Debut for "GreenliteTV" • GRNL • May 21, 2024 2:28 PM
North Bay Resources Announces 50/50 JV at Fran Gold Project, British Columbia; Initiates NI 43-101 Resources Estimate and Bulk Sample • NBRI • May 21, 2024 9:07 AM
Greenlite Ventures Inks Deal to Acquire No Limit Technology • GRNL • May 17, 2024 3:00 PM
Music Licensing, Inc. (OTC: SONG) Subsidiary Pro Music Rights Secures Final Judgment of $114,081.30 USD, Demonstrating Strength of Licensing Agreements • SONGD • May 17, 2024 11:00 AM