Tariffs-Free Regulatory Importing? Jul. 2016 | Page 21

Tariffs-Free Regulatory Importing? Asad Akhtar instance, the whistleblower disclosed to the SEC that trades were being entered into on the behalf of a client to an affiliated broker-dealer counterparty, without initially obtaining the client’s consent.56 Upon becoming aware of the SEC report, the SEC alleged that Paradigm engaged in retaliatory actions that ultimately led to the whistleblower’s resignation. This included stripping his title of a head-trader, omitting any supervisory responsibilities and assigning him to do lowlevel compliance work in an isolated location of the office.57 Restrictive Language in Agreements - KBR Inc. In April 2015, the SEC brought its first enforcement action against a company using restrictive language in confidentiality agreements to disrupt the SEC’s whistleblowing program.58 The engineering firm KBR Inc. required employees to sign agreements during certain internal investigations that prohibited them from discussing the matter with outside parties, including regulatory authorities, without obtaining the consent of the company’s legal department.59 The punishments for breaching this provision included discipline and potential termination.60 The SEC found the company to be in violation of Rule 21F-17, taking any action that may impede whistleblowers from reporting to the SEC, and KBR agreed to modify the agreements and provide an exclusion for the SEC.61 C. Internal Compliance Eligibility It has been argued by some litigants that for an employer to be constrained to the antiretaliation provisions under Section 21F, the whistle blower must report the securities law 56 Supra, note 54 at 3-4. Supra, note 54 at 6-8. 58 File No. 3-16466 (April 1, 2015), online: SEC (cease-and-desist proceeding brought against KBR Inc.). 59 Ibid at 2. 60 Ibid. 61 Supra, note 58 at 3. 57 20