SEC Enforcement Actions May Require Changes to Severance Agreements

Alerts / August 17, 2016

Public companies should revisit their template severance agreements, in light of two recent orders by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).[1] Standard severance clauses covering (1) confidential information and (2) prohibitions against receiving additional monetary awards have been deemed unlawful by the SEC, resulting in settlements and fines exceeding $600,000, plus other sanctions.

The SEC’s allegations in both cases were based on the Whistleblower Incentives and Protection section of the amended Securities and Exchange Act, which reads:

(a) 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.

This section, contained in Rule 21F-17, was enacted as part of the Whistleblower Program contained in the Dodd-Frank reforms of 2010.

The alleged violations in these two cases were not that the company’s standard severance agreement prohibited individuals from making reports to the SEC. To the contrary, both companies’ agreements made clear that the outgoing employees could raise allegations with a government agency.

The violations, rather, were (1) that the individuals had to waive their right to any further recovery if they were to raise allegations with a government agency, and (2) that if the filing of a charge (or the raising of allegations) involved disclosing confidential company information to the agency, the individuals would have to provide notice to the company first.

(1)  “No further recovery” clauses

“No further recovery” clauses have become commonplace in severance agreements because companies cannot prohibit their employees (or ex-employees) from making complaints of wrongdoing to government agencies, even where the employees have waived their right to bring a civil suit based on the same facts. To disincentivize employees from making such complaints to government agencies, severance agreements often include clauses in which employees agree that, even if they make such allegations, they will not accept any monetary award beyond what they are receiving as severance pay.

The SEC, however, considers the financial incentives made available to whistleblowers by Dodd-Frank to be a “critical component” of the Whistleblower Program. It deems these financial rewards as necessary to offset the “enormous risk [to an individual] of blowing the whistle in calling attention to fraud.” The SEC found that requiring individuals to waive these payouts as a condition of accepting severance is a violation of Rule 21F-17. Such a requirement, the SEC concluded, “impedes individuals” from participating in the SEC’s whistleblower program. The waiver of additional financial recovery removes “important financial incentives that are intended to encourage persons to communicate directly with the Commission staff about possible securities law violations.”

(2) Confidentiality Clauses and Employer Notification Requirements

Confidential information clauses have also become commonplace in severance agreements, serving to remind employees of the importance of preserving company confidential information. These clauses often include carve-outs recognizing that the disclosure of confidential information may sometimes be required by law or by a subpoena. Under such circumstances, however, a typical confidentiality clause might also require the individual to provide the company with advance notice before disclosing the confidential information. Such clauses are intended to provide the company with an opportunity to object to the subpoena or to seek an appropriate protective order before the individual discloses confidential information.

The SEC found that these clauses, requiring prior notice before disclosure, also violate Rule 21F-17. A “critical” whistleblower protection provided under Dodd-Frank is the ability of whistleblowers to remain confidential, according to the Commission. Prior disclosure requirements are illegal, the SEC wrote, because they force individuals to choose between identifying themselves to the company as whistleblowers (i.e., agreeing to notify the company before blowing the whistle) or forfeiting a severance package.

The SEC noted that the confidentiality and prior notice clauses at issue did not contain any exception that would permit disclosure to the government without prior notice to the company. Had the severance agreement included such an exception, it likely would have withstood the SEC’s scrutiny.

Action Items for Public Companies

In light of these two settlements and the accompanying findings by the SEC, public companies should review their severance agreements and modify or remove language that the SEC would find objectionable.

“No further recovery” clauses may need to be removed or redrafted to permit recovery of whistleblower bounties under Dodd-Frank.

Confidentiality clauses may require redrafting as well. Such clauses may need carve-outs that permit disclosure to the SEC or other government agencies, without requiring prior notification to the company.

The SEC’s targets in these two actions were a health care company in California and a construction company in Georgia. The settlement agreements and accompanying orders were released within six days of each other. The diversity in industries and locations of these two companies sends a signal that the SEC’s enforcement initiative regarding these types of clauses is not limited to a particular type of public company. In one of the cases, the SEC noted that it had no evidence that the severance clauses actually discouraged any individual from making a report to the SEC. The mere existence of the clause was deemed sufficient, in the view of the SEC, to violate Rule 21F-17.

All companies whose activities are subject to SEC requirements should consider proactive steps to avoid becoming the target of a similar action.

If you have any questions about this alert, please contact Todd H. Lebowitz at tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com or 216.861.7899 or any member of BakerHostetler’s Whistleblower and Compliance team.

Authorship credit: Todd H. Lebowitz


[1] In the Matter of BlueLinx Holdings Inc., Administrative Proceeding, File No. 3-17371, Order dated Aug. 10, 2016; In the Matter of Health Net, Inc., Administrative Proceeding, File No. 3-17396, Order dated Aug. 16, 2016.


Baker & Hostetler LLP publications are intended to inform our clients and other friends of the firm about current legal developments of general interest. They should not be construed as legal advice, and readers should not act upon the information contained in these publications without professional counsel. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you written information about our qualifications and experience.

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Employment Class Action Blog
Court Decertifies Class Challenging Timekeeping Practices
February 27, 2017
Yogi Berra often has been quoted for the phrase “It ain’t over till it’s over,” and Lenny Kravitz even made a hit song of it in 1991. While no one will likely ever make a popular song out of Rule 23, the phrase applies just as well to...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
Court Dismisses Disparate Impact Class Claims Due to Limited EEOC Charge
February 22, 2017
Disparate impact cases are different in kind from the far more common disparate treatment claims that are the staple of single-plaintiff discrimination cases. Disparate treatment claims, of course, are ones in which an employee contends...
Read More ->
Employment Law Spotlight
New York Appellate Court Declines to Enforce Noncompetes Against Employees Terminated Without Cause
February 14, 2017
A recent decision by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division for the First Department, Buchanan Capital Markets, LLC v. DeLucca, 144 A.D.3d 508 (1st Dep’t. 2016), suggests that noncompetition restrictions against employees who have...
Read More ->
Employment Law Spotlight
Joint Employment Update: What’s The Status of Browning-Ferris and the NLRB?
By Todd H. Lebowitz
January 30, 2017
In August 2015, the NLRB rewrote the book on joint employment, declaring in the Browning-Ferris case that the right to exercise minimal control, even if not actually exercised, was enough to create a joint employment relationship. (Read...
Read More ->
Employment Class Action Blog
Court Refuses to Certify Class Due to Lack of Adequacy of Class Counsel
January 27, 2017
Class action litigation is not for amateurs We’ve commented before in this blog on cases in which courts declined to certify employment actions due to adequacy of class counsel. A recent case reflects that some courts will look not only to...
Read More ->