{"id":9873,"date":"2026-02-20T16:06:01","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T16:06:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/cftc-announces-first-ever-enforcement-action-for-impeding-whistleblowers\/"},"modified":"2026-02-20T16:06:01","modified_gmt":"2026-02-20T16:06:01","slug":"cftc-announces-first-ever-enforcement-action-for-impeding-whistleblowers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/cftc-announces-first-ever-enforcement-action-for-impeding-whistleblowers\/","title":{"rendered":"CFTC Announces First-Ever Enforcement Action for Impeding Whistleblowers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (\u201cCFTC\u201d) recently announced<\/a> a first-of-its-kind enforcement action under CFTC Rule 165.19(b), for allegedly impeding whistleblower reporting by requiring employees to enter into confidentiality agreements that did not explicitly confirm employees\u2019 freedom to communicate with law enforcement or regulators. This action comes in the wake of recent heightened enforcement activity by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (\u201cSEC\u201d) to enforce a similar whistleblower rule, SEC Rule 21F-17(a).<\/p>\n

*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 *<\/p>\n

On June 17, 2024, the CFTC announced a settlement with Trafigura Trading LLC (\u201cTrafigura\u201d), a commodities trading firm. The CFTC\u2019s Order brought and settled charges for three distinct courses of conduct. In addition to charges under Rule 180.1(a)(1) and (3) relating to (i) alleged misappropriation of material non-public information from another market participant, and (ii)\u00a0manipulation of a benchmark price for fuel oil, the CFTC\u2019s Order found that (iii) by requiring employees to sign employment agreements and separation agreements with broad non-disclosure provisions, Trafigura impeded voluntary communications with the CFTC and violated CFTC Rule 165.19(b).<\/p>\n

Specifically, in support of the Rule 165.19(b) charge, the CFTC alleged that between 2017 and 2020, \u201cTrafigura required its employees to sign employment agreements, and requested that former employees sign separation agreements, with broad non-disclosure provisions that prohibited the sharing of Trafigura\u2019s confidential information with third parties.\u201d These agreements allegedly \u201cdid not contain carve-out language expressly permitting communications with law enforcement or regulators like the Commission.\u201d As a result, the CFTC concluded that the agreements \u201cpurported to prohibit individuals from voluntarily and directly communicating directly with Commission staff about possible violations\u201d of the Commodity Exchange Act (\u201cCEA\u201d) and associated regulations, in violation of CFTC Rule 165.19(b).<\/p>\n

The settlement is the first time the CFTC has enforced Rule 165.19(b), which prohibits any \u201cperson\u201d from taking \u201cany\u00a0action\u00a0to impede an individual from communicating directly with the\u00a0[CFTC]\u2019s staff about a possible violation of the\u00a0[CEA], including by enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement or pre-dispute arbitration agreement with respect to such communications.\u201d That rule closely tracks the language of SEC Rule 21F-17(a), which similarly prohibits taking \u201cany action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the [SEC] staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement.\u201d Unlike the CFTC, the SEC has brought a number of enforcement actions against companies for allegedly impeding whistleblower reporting. Although the text of the CFTC and SEC rules is similar, the rules were adopted under different statutory provisions and agency rulemaking processes.<\/p>\n

The CFTC amended Rule 165.19(b) in 2017 to make it \u201cconsistent with the SEC\u2019s whistleblower rules.\u201d In doing so, the CFTC purported to revoke its prior position that the associated provision of the CEA under which Rule 165 was enacted created only a private right of action for whistleblower retaliation such that the CFTC \u201cdoes not have the statutory authority to conclude that any entity that retaliates against a whistleblower commits a separate and independent violation of the CEA.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Trafigura settlement order does not:<\/p>\n