Exchange Act Rule 21F-17, adopted in 2011 under the auspices of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, prohibits any person from taking any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the SEC, including by “enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement . . . .” The SEC has prioritized enforcing this rule expansively, by requiring employers to provide SEC-specific carveouts to policies and agreements governing confidentiality. According to an Order issued last week against The Brink’s Company ( “Brink’s” or “Brinks”), the SEC seems to suggest that employers must provide a specific carveout in restrictive covenant agreements permitting employees and former employees to report information to the SEC in addition to the statutory disclosure provided for in the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).
Our colleague Daniel J. Green, an Associate at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “Aggressive New Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals Threatens Criminal Prosecution for Certain Unlawful Wage Fixing and No Poaching Agreements”
Following up on a string of civil enforcement actions and employee antitrust suits, regarding no-poaching agreements in the technology industry, on October 20, 2016 the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Federal ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- New Federal Agency Policies and Protocols for Artificial Intelligence Utilization and Procurement Can Provide Useful Guidance for Private Entities
- Video: Non-Competes Eased, Anti-DEI Rule Blocked, Contractor Rule in Limbo - Employment Law This Week
- Video: Insider Strategies for Wage and Hour Compliance Success: One-on-One with Paul DeCamp
- Video: Can the President Fire NLRB Members Without Cause? SCOTUS May Decide - Employment Law This Week
- The Third Circuit Orders Another Review in Cornelius v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.—Resolution Will Wait for Another Day in New Jersey Federal Court, but Not Because of the EFAA