Regulatory Reform 10 Years After the Financial Crisis: Dodd-Frank and Securities Law

金融危机十年后的监管改革：多德弗兰克法案和证券法

2011-2019 · Congressional Research Service (public domain) · 原文

From 2007-2009, the United States experienced what many commentators believe was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

2007年至2009年，美国经历了许多评论家认为的大萧条以来最严重的经济危机。

In the wake of the crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in 2010.

危机爆发后，国会于 2010 年通过了《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法案》(Dodd-Frank)。

Title IX of Dodd-Frank, entitled “Investor Protections and Improvements to the Regulation of Securities,” focuses on the powers and authorities of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and authorizes the SEC to promulgate certain rules intended to enhance corporate accountability and corporate governance.

多德弗兰克法案第九章题为“投资者保护和证券监管的改进”，重点关注证券交易委员会（SEC）的权力和权限，并授权 SEC 颁布某些旨在加强公司责任和公司治理的规则。

This report discusses recent developments with respect to two aspects of Title IX, including legislative proposals such as the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R.

本报告讨论了第九条两个方面的最新进展，包括立法提案，例如 2017 年《金融选择法案》（H.R.

10, 115th Cong.) that would change or repeal aspects of Title IX.

10，第 115 届国会），这将改变或废除第九条的某些方面。

First, in February 2018, the Supreme Court issued a potentially significant decision in Digital Realty, Inc. v.

首先，2018 年 2 月，最高法院在 Digital Realty, Inc. v. 案中做出了一项可能具有重大意义的裁决。

Somers.

萨默斯。

The case involved the new SEC whistleblower program instituted by Section 922 of Dodd-Frank and resolved a dispute that had arisen among the lower courts as to the scope of individuals who could avail themselves of anti-retaliation protections provided by the Act.

该案件涉及多德弗兰克法案第 922 条规定的新 SEC 举报人计划，并解决了下级法院之间就可以利用该法案提供的反报复保护的个人范围而产生的争议。

In Digital Realty, the Court held that Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protections do not apply to internal whistleblowers—that is, those who report violations within their organizations but not to the SEC.

在 Digital Realty 案中，法院认为《多德弗兰克法案》的举报人保护不适用于内部举报人，即那些在组织内部举报违规行为但不向 SEC 举报的举报人。

The dispute between the parties (and the lower courts) resulted from the tension between Dodd-Frank’s definition of the term “whistleblower” and its incorporation of a reference to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in Section 922’s anti-retaliation provision.

双方（以及下级法院）之间的争议源于《多德弗兰克法案》对“举报人”一词的定义与其在第 922 条反报复条款中引用 2002 年《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》的内容之间的紧张关系。

As this report discusses, the Supreme Court’s decision has potentially important implications for the enforcement of securities law, especially as Congress considers further changes to Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower program.

正如本报告所讨论的，最高法院的裁决对证券法的执行具有潜在的重要影响，特别是在国会考虑进一步修改多德弗兰克法案的举报计划时。

Second, in early 2018, reporting companies began to formally comply with the SEC’s “pay ratio rule.” That rule was promulgated pursuant to Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank, which requires public disclosure of the ratio between the annual total compensation of a company’s median employee to the annual total compensation of its Chief Executive Officer (i.e., the company’s median worker to CEO pay ratio).

其次，2018年初，报告公司开始正式遵守SEC的“薪酬比例规则”。该规则是根据《多德弗兰克法案》第 953(b) 条颁布的，该条款要求公开披露公司中位员工的年度总薪酬与其首席执行官的年度总薪酬之间的比率（即公司中位员工与首席执行官的薪酬比率）。

In promulgating the rule, the SEC adopted a largely flexible approach that it regarded as satisfying Dodd-Frank’s statutory requirements while taking due consideration of the high compliance costs for companies.

在颁布该规则时，美国证券交易委员会采取了一种很大程度上灵活的方法，它认为这种方法满足多德弗兰克法案的法定要求，同时适当考虑了公司高昂的合规成本。

The report further discusses potential challenges that may be brought to the pay ratio disclosure requirement.

报告进一步讨论了薪酬比率披露要求可能带来的潜在挑战。

Included in this discussion is a comparison between the pay ratio rule and the so-called “conflict minerals rule” and “resource extraction rule” the SEC previously promulgated pursuant to Dodd-Frank.

此次讨论包括薪酬比率规则与美国证券交易委员会先前根据多德弗兰克法案颁布的所谓“冲突矿物规则”和“资源开采规则”之间的比较。

From 2007-2009, the United States experienced what many commentators believe was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

2007年至2009年，美国经历了许多评论家认为的大萧条以来最严重的经济危机。

In the wake of the crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) in 2010.

危机爆发后，国会于 2010 年通过了《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法案》(Dodd-Frank)。

Title IX of Dodd-Frank, entitled "Investor Protections and Improvements to the Regulation of Securities," focuses on the powers and authorities of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and authorizes the SEC to promulgate certain rules intended to enhance corporate accountability and corporate governance.

This report discusses recent developments with respect to two aspects of Title IX, including legislative proposals such as the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 ( H.R.

本报告讨论了第九条两个方面的最新进展，包括立法提案，例如 2017 年《金融选择法案》（H.R.

10 , 115th Cong.) that would change or repeal aspects of Title IX.

10，第 115 届国会），这将改变或废除第九条的某些方面。

First, in February 2018, the Supreme Court issued a potentially significant decision in Digital Realty, Inc. v.

首先，2018 年 2 月，最高法院在 Digital Realty, Inc. v. 案中做出了一项可能具有重大意义的裁决。

Somers .

萨默斯.

该案件涉及多德弗兰克法案第 922 条规定的新 SEC 举报人计划，并解决了下级法院之间就可以利用该法案提供的反报复保护的个人范围而产生的争议。

In Digital Realty , the Court held that Dodd-Frank's whistleblower protections do not apply to internal whistleblowers—that is, those who report violations within their organizations but not to the SEC.

在 Digital Realty 案中，法院认为多德弗兰克法案的举报人保护不适用于内部举报人，即那些在组织内部举报违规行为但不向 SEC 举报的举报人。

The dispute between the parties (and the lower courts) resulted from the tension between Dodd-Frank's definition of the term "whistleblower" and its incorporation of a reference to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in Section 922's anti-retaliation provision.

双方（和下级法院）之间的争议源于《多德弗兰克法案》对“举报人”一词的定义与在第 922 条反报复条款中引用 2002 年《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》的内容之间的紧张关系。

As this report discusses, the Supreme Court's decision has potentially important implications for the enforcement of securities law, especially as Congress considers further changes to Dodd-Frank's whistleblower program.

正如本报告所讨论的，最高法院的裁决对证券法的执行具有潜在的重要影响，特别是在国会考虑进一步修改多德弗兰克法案的举报计划时。

Second, in early 2018, reporting companies began to formally comply with the SEC's "pay ratio rule." That rule was promulgated pursuant to Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank, which requires public disclosure of the ratio between the annual total compensation of a company's median employee to the annual total compensation of its Chief Executive Officer (i.e., the company's median worker to CEO pay ratio).

In promulgating the rule, the SEC adopted a largely flexible approach that it regarded as satisfying Dodd-Frank's statutory requirements while taking due consid eration of the high compliance costs for companies.

在颁布该规则时，美国证券交易委员会采取了一种很大程度上灵活的方法，它认为这种方法满足多德弗兰克法案的法定要求，同时适当考虑了公司的高合规成本。

The report further discusses potential challenges that may be brought to the pay ratio disclosure requirement.

报告进一步讨论了薪酬比率披露要求可能带来的潜在挑战。

Included in this discussion is a comparison between the pay ratio rule and the so-called "conflict minerals rule" and "resource extraction rule" the SEC previously promulgated pursuant to Dodd-Frank.

此次讨论包括薪酬比率规则与美国证券交易委员会先前根据多德弗兰克法案颁布的所谓“冲突矿物规则”和“资源开采规则”之间的比较。

F rom 2007-2009, the United States experienced what many commentators believe was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

2007年至2009年，美国经历了许多评论家认为的大萧条以来最严重的经济危机。

1 According to many observers, a principal cause of the crisis was the collapse of a bubble in the housing market that had developed in the early and mid-2000s.

1 许多观察家认为，这场危机的主要原因是 2000 年代初期和中期形成的房地产市场泡沫的破灭。

2 As this bubble popped over the course of 2007 and 2008, many financial institutions began to experience large losses related to the subprime mortgage market.

2 随着 2007 年和 2008 年泡沫的破裂，许多金融机构开始遭受与次级抵押贷款市场相关的巨额损失。

In particular, two of the nation's largest investment banks, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, collapsed in 2008, leading to reverberations throughout the nation's financial markets.

特别是2008年美国最大的两家投资银行贝尔斯登和雷曼兄弟倒闭，在全国金融市场引起轩然大波。

For instance, Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy in September 2008 led to a drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average of more than 500 points, its worst single-day decline in seven years.

例如，2008年9月，雷曼兄弟破产，导致道琼斯工业平均指数下跌500多点，创下七年来最严重的单日跌幅。

4 The fall of 2008 also witnessed the exposure of a $65 billion fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff, further impacting the financial markets.

4 2008 年秋天，伯纳德·麦道夫 (Bernard Madoff) 的 650 亿美元欺诈案也被曝光，进一步影响了金融市场。

5 As other large investment banks began experiencing considerable losses in value, 6 the government provided emergency funding to those institutions through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, signed into law in October 2008.

5 当其他大型投资银行开始遭受相当大的价值损失时，6 政府通过 2008 年 10 月签署成为法律的《紧急经济稳定法案》向这些机构提供了紧急资金。

7 Specifically, the act created the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), 8 pursuant to which the federal government would eventually disburse over $400 billion to financial institutions and the automotive industry, among others.

7 具体来说，该法案创建了问题资产救助计划 (TARP)，8 根据该计划，联邦政府最终将向金融机构和汽车行业等支付超过 4000 亿美元。

The troubles in the financial system also spilled over to the real economy.

金融体系的问题也蔓延到了实体经济。

Between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2009, real GDP fell by an estimated 4.2 percent.

2007年第四季度至2009年第二季度之间，实际GDP估计下降了4.2%。

10 U.S. households lost an estimated 26 percent of their wealth ($17 trillion) between mid-2007 and early 2009.

2007 年中期至 2009 年初，10 个美国家庭估计损失了 26% 的财富（17 万亿美元）。

11 And between January 2008 and December 2009, the economy lost an estimated 8.3 million jobs.

11 2008 年 1 月至 2009 年 12 月期间，经济损失了大约 830 万个就业岗位。

In assessing the central impetus for the economic crisis that began in late 2007, a range of views have emerged.

在评估 2007 年底开始的经济危机的核心推动力时，出现了一系列观点。

13 Nonetheless, one view that, as discussed below, influenced certain legal changes that resulted in the aftermath of the financial crisis concluded that the financial institutions' losses that contributed to the economic downturn were largely caused by excessively risky investments in and exposure to housing markets, including through the mortgage securitization process.

13 尽管如此，如下所述，一种观点影响了导致金融危机后果的某些法律变化，其结论是，金融机构造成经济衰退的损失主要是由于住房市场风险过高的投资和风险敞口造成的，包括通过抵押贷款证券化进程进行的投资和暴露。

14 Relatedly, some commentators further viewed executive compensation structures during this time period as incentivizing excessive risk-taking and encouraging investments that resulted in widespread economic losses.

14 与此相关的是，一些评论家进一步认为，这一时期的高管薪酬结构鼓励过度冒险并鼓励投资，从而导致广泛的经济损失。

In the wake of the financial crisis, policymakers began working on legislation to reform the financial system, and in July 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank or the Act).

金融危机爆发后，政策制定者开始致力于立法改革金融体系，2010年7月，国会通过了《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法案》（《多德弗兰克法案》）。

16 The Act's stated purposes, among others, are "[t]o promote financial stability in the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end 'too big to fail,' to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, [and] to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices." 17 Ten years after the financial crisis, Dodd-Frank's changes to the law continue to be the subject of significant litigation and debate.

16 该法案的既定目的包括“通过改善金融体系的问责制和透明度来促进美国的金融稳定，结束‘太大而不能倒’的现象，通过终止救助来保护美国纳税人，以及保护消费者免受滥用金融服务行为的影响。” 17 金融危机十年后，《多德弗兰克法案》对法律的修改仍然是重大诉讼和辩论的主题。

Title IX of Dodd-Frank, entitled "Investor Protections and Improvements to the Regulation of Securities," focuses on the powers and authorities of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 19 an independent agency created by the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to enforce federal securities law.

多德弗兰克法案第九章题为“投资者保护和证券监管的改进”，重点关注证券交易委员会 (SEC) 的权力和权限，19 证券交易委员会是根据 1934 年《证券交易法》创建的独立机构，负责执行联邦证券法。

20 Title IX authorizes the SEC to promulgate certain rules intended to enhance corporate accountability and governance.

20 第九条授权美国证券交易委员会颁布某些旨在加强公司责任和治理的规则。

21 In the view of the Senate Report accompanying Dodd-Frank, "[s]ignificant aspects of the financial crisis involved securities." 22 Specifically, the Senate Report took the position that "[s]erious and far-reaching problems were caused by poor and risky securitization practices; erroneous credit ratings; ineffective SEC regulation of investment banks such as Lehman Brothers and broker dealers such as Madoff; and excessive compensation incentives that promoted excessive risk taking." 23 According to the Senate Report, two main goals of Title IX were to provide investors with better protections and to give shareholders more of a voice in corporate governance.

21 多德弗兰克法案随附的参议院报告认为，“金融危机的重要方面涉及证券。” 22 具体而言，参议院报告认为“严重而深远的问题是由不良和高风险的证券化实践、错误的信用评级、美国证券交易委员会对雷曼兄弟等投资银行和麦道夫等经纪交易商的无效监管以及促进过度冒险的过度薪酬激励造成的。” 23 根据参议院报告，第九条的两个主要目标是为投资者提供更好的保护，并让股东在公司治理中拥有更多的发言权。

This report discusses two aspects of Title IX that have seen significant developments in early 2018.

本报告讨论了 2018 年初第九条取得重大进展的两个方面。

First, in February 2018, the Supreme Court rendered a potentially significant decision with respect to a new SEC whistleblower program instituted by Dodd-Frank, resolving a dispute that had arisen among the lower courts as to the scope of individuals who could avail themselves of anti-retaliation protections provided by the Act.

首先，2018 年 2 月，最高法院就《多德弗兰克法案》制定的新的 SEC 举报计划做出了一项可能具有重大意义的决定，解决了下级法院之间就可以利用该法案提供的反报复保护的个人范围而产生的争议。

25 The report discusses the SEC whistleblower program, the dispute as framed by a number of U.S. Courts of Appeals, the Supreme Court's decision and reasoning, and implications of the Court's decision.

25 该报告讨论了 SEC 举报计划、美国多个上诉法院提出的争议、最高法院的判决和推理以及法院判决的影响。

Second, in early 2018, companies began their compliance with a new SEC disclosure rule mandated by Dodd-Frank, which requires them to publicly disclose the ratio between the median annual total compensation of all of their employees to the annual total compensation of their Chief Executive Officer.

其次，2018年初，公司开始遵守多德弗兰克法案强制执行的美国证券交易委员会新披露规则，该规则要求他们公开披露所有员工的年度总薪酬中位数与其首席执行官的年度总薪酬之间的比率。

26 The report discusses the SEC's adoption of the rule, the rule's operation, and potential challenges that may be brought to the pay ratio disclosure requirement now that it is in operation.

26 报告讨论了美国证券交易委员会对该规则的采用、该规则的实施以及该规则实施后可能给薪酬比率披露要求带来的潜在挑战。

To promote corporate compliance with federal securities law, Section 922 of Dodd-Frank creates a new whistleblower program at the SEC, providing both incentives and enhanced protections for securities law "whistleblowers." 27 In a ruling that narrows the scope of Section 922, on February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Digital Realty, Inc. v.

为了促进企业遵守联邦证券法，《多德弗兰克法案》第 922 条在 SEC 制定了一项新的举报人计划，为证券法“举报人”提供激励并加强保护。 27 在缩小第 922 条范围的裁决中，最高法院于 2018 年 2 月 21 日就 Digital Realty, Inc. v. 案作出了裁决。

Somers .

萨默斯.

28 Specifically, in Digital Realty , the Court held that Section 922's whistleblower protections do not apply to internal whistleblowers—that is, those who report violations within their organizations but not to the SEC.

28 具体来说，在 Digital Realty 案中，法院认为第 922 条的举报人保护不适用于内部举报人，即那些在其组织内部举报违规行为但不向 SEC 举报的人。

This section of the report provides background regarding the SEC whistleblower program created by Dodd-Frank and compares pre-Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation protections available to securities law whistleblowers to Section 922.

报告的这一部分提供了多德弗兰克法案制定的 SEC 举报人计划的背景，并将多德弗兰克法案之前针对证券法举报人的反报复保护与第 922 条进行了比较。

It then discusses the circuit split that arose concerning whether internal reporters are protected by Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provisions, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Digital Realty , and implications of the case for securities law.

然后讨论了因内部记者是否受到《多德弗兰克法案》反报复条款保护而产生的巡回分歧、最高法院在 Digital Realty 案中的推理以及该案对证券法的影响。

Section 922 of Dodd-Frank establishes new incentives and protections for whistleblowers who report certain violations of securities laws.

《多德弗兰克法案》第 922 条为举报某些违反证券法行为的举报人制定了新的激励措施和保护措施。

The Senate Report accompanying Dodd-Frank pointed to factors such as "ineffective SEC regulation of Madoff Securities, Lehman Brothers and other firms" as a significant aspect of the financial crisis.

多德弗兰克法案随附的参议院报告指出，“美国证券交易委员会对麦道夫证券、雷曼兄弟和其他公司的监管无效”等因素是金融危机的一个重要方面。

Through Title IX of Dodd-Frank, the Senate Report stated, "[t]he SEC would get more power, assistance and money at its disposal to be an effective securities markets regulator." 29 The report further stated, with respect to the Act's whistleblower provisions that, "[t]he SEC would have more help in identifying securities law violations through a new, robust whistleblower program designed .

参议院报告通过多德弗兰克法案第九条指出，“美国证券交易委员会将获得更多的权力、援助和资金，成为有效的证券市场监管机构。” 29 该报告进一步指出，关于该法案的举报人条款，“通过设计新的、强大的举报人计划，美国证券交易委员会将在识别证券法违规行为方面获得更多帮助。”

。

to motivate people who know of securities law violations to tell the SEC." 30 The new whistleblower program introduced by Dodd-Frank has two central aspects: (1) providing monetary incentives for whistleblowers through financial rewards, and (2) enhancing anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers against adverse actions taken by their employers.

激励了解证券法违法行为的人向 SEC 举报。” 30 多德-弗兰克法案推出的新举报人计划有两个核心方面：(1) 通过经济奖励为举报人提供金钱激励；(2) 加强针对举报人雇主采取的不利行为的反报复保护。

Under Dodd-Frank, eligible whistleblowers who voluntarily provide "original information" to the SEC, 31 resulting in a successful judicial or administrative enforcement action with monetary sanctions exceeding one million dollars, are entitled to financial awards.

根据《多德弗兰克法案》，自愿向 SEC 提供“原始信息”31 并导致司法或行政执法行动成功并受到超过 100 万美元罚款的合格举报人将有权获得经济奖励。

32 The cash award for a qualifying whistleblower may range from 10 to 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected in the enforcement action, to be paid from a congressionally authorized Investor Protection Fund (so as not to detract from any victims' recovery).

32 合格举报人的现金奖励可能为执法行动中所收货币制裁的 10% 至 30%，由国会授权的投资者保护基金支付（以免影响任何受害者的康复）。

33 The precise amount of the award is left to the discretion of the SEC, determined based on factors such as the significance of the information to the success of the action and the degree of assistance the whistleblower provided.

33 奖励的具体金额由 SEC 酌情决定，并根据信息对行动成功的重要性以及举报人提供的协助程度等因素确定。

34 Whistleblowers are generally defined under the statute to be individuals "who provide .

34 根据该法规，举报人通常被定义为“提供……的个人”。

。

information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission." 35 Nonetheless, the incentives program does exclude some whistleblowers, including "any whistleblower who is convicted of a criminal violation related to the judicial or administrative action for which the whistleblower otherwise could receive an award under this section." 36

按照委员会规则或法规规定的方式向委员会提供与违反证券法有关的信息。” 35 尽管如此，激励计划确实排除了一些举报人，包括“任何被判犯有与司法或行政行为有关的刑事违法行为的举报人，而举报人本来可以根据本节获得奖励”。 36

The incentive program established by Section 922 of Dodd-Frank is now in its seventh year of operation.

多德-弗兰克法案第 922 条规定的激励计划现已进入第七个年头。

37 The SEC reports that enforcement matters involving whistleblower information have yielded $975 million in monetary sanctions to date, much of which has been or will be returned to investors.

37 美国证券交易委员会报告称，迄今为止，涉及举报人信息的执法事项已导致 9.75 亿美元的经济制裁，其中大部分已经或将返还给投资者。

38 Since the program's inception through the end of September 2017, the SEC had awarded $160 million in whistleblower awards under the incentive program.

38 自该计划启动以来，截至 2017 年 9 月，美国证券交易委员会已根据激励计划授予了 1.6 亿美元的举报人奖励。

39 Moreover, the agency recently increased that figure by approximately 50% with its largest award yet—$83 million awarded to three whistleblowers in related investigations that, according to the whistleblowers' lawyers, involved tips concerning transactions that effectively commingled customer and company funds at Merrill Lynch in violation of customer protection rules.

39 此外，该机构最近将这一数字提高了约 50%，并颁发了迄今为止最大的一笔奖金——向参与相关调查的三名举报人颁发了 8,300 万美元，据举报人律师称，这些调查涉及美林证券违反客户保护规则，有效混合客户和公司资金的交易的提示。

The Financial CHOICE Act passed by the House of Representatives in June 2017 would exclude certain additional categories of whistleblowers from eligibility for a financial incentive award.

众议院于 2017 年 6 月通过的《财务选择法案》将排除某些其他类别的举报人获得财务奖励的资格。

As noted above, currently, the incentive program makes whistleblowers with a criminal conviction related to the underlying complaint ineligible for an award.

如上所述，目前，奖励计划使得因相关投诉而被定罪的举报人没有资格获得奖励。

41 The CHOICE Act would further deny bounties to any whistleblower who was responsible for or complicit in—or who in certain circumstances failed to try to prevent—the misconduct being reported.

41《选择法案》将进一步拒绝向任何对所报告的不当行为负有责任或同谋——或者在某些情况下未能试图阻止——所举报的不当行为的举报人提供奖金。

42 The bill defines these categories in terms of a person who (1) "procures, induces, or causes another person to commit the offense"; (2) "aids or abets another person in committing the offense"; or (3) "having a duty to prevent the violation, fails to make an effort the person is required to make." 43 Critics of the bill have noted that the legislation, in excluding a whistleblower who fails to "make an effort" to stop the complained of action, could significantly reduce the pool of potential whistleblowers and eliminate those who may be in the best position to report wrongdoing, particularly if the person is in a subordinate position to the primary wrongdoer.

42 该法案将这些类别定义为 (1) “引诱、诱导或导致他人实施犯罪”的人； (2) “协助或者教唆他人实施犯罪”；（三）“有制止违法行为的义务，未尽到应尽的努力”的。 43 该法案的批评者指出，该立法将未能“努力”阻止被投诉行为的举报人排除在外，可能会大大减少潜在举报人的数量，并消除那些可能最有能力报告不法行为的人，特别是如果该人处于主要不法行为者的从属地位。

44 Supporters of the provision, by contrast, argue that the program should not reward individuals who may have had a role, even passively, in the underlying wrongdoing of which they complain.

44 相比之下，该条款的支持者认为，该计划不应奖励那些可能在他们所抱怨的潜在不当行为中发挥作用的个人，即使是被动的。

Section 922 also enhanced and strengthened anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers in several respects 46 .

第 922 条还在多个方面增强和加强了对举报人的反报复保护 46 。

The SEC has brought a number of actions against employers under the anti-retaliation provisions and a rule promulgated pursuant to it.

美国证券交易委员会已根据反报复条款和据此颁布的规则对雇主采取了多项行动。

47 For example, in its enforcement efforts, the SEC has specifically focused on provisions in separation and severance agreements that restrict former employees' ability to report securities law violations to the SEC.

47 例如，在执法工作中，美国证券交易委员会特别关注离职和遣散协议中限制前雇员向美国证券交易委员会报告证券法违规行为的条款。

48 Most relevant to Digital Realty, the anti-retaliation provision further authorizes a private right of action, allowing individuals who experience retaliation as a result of activity protected by Section 922 to sue their employers in federal court for reinstatement, double back pay, with interest, and compensation for litigation costs and fees.

48 与 Digital Realty 最相关的是，反报复条款进一步授权了私人诉讼权，允许因第 922 条保护的活动而遭受报复的个人向联邦法院起诉其雇主，要求恢复原职、双倍欠薪和利息，并赔偿诉讼费用和费用。

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), enacted in 2002 in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom accounting scandals, 50 contained the most significant whistleblower protection provision in federal securities law before Dodd-Frank.

2002 年安然和世通会计丑闻之后颁布的《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》(SOX) 50 包含了《多德弗兰克法案》之前联邦证券法中最重要的举报人保护条款。

Because the anti-retaliation provision in Section 922 of Dodd-Frank contains certain references to SOX, it is important to understand the pre-existing protections that were available under SOX.

由于《多德-弗兰克法案》第 922 条中的反报复条款包含对 SOX 的某些提及，因此了解 SOX 下现有的保护措施非常重要。

The 2002 law's anti-retaliation provision generally protects an "employee" who provides information regarding a suspected violation of certain securities laws to: (1) a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, (2) a Member or Committee of Congress, or (3) "a person with supervisory authority over the employee" working for the same employer.

2002 年法律的反报复条款通常保护向以下人员提供涉嫌违反某些证券法的信息的“雇员”：(1) 联邦监管或执法机构，(2) 国会议员或国会委员会，或 (3) 为同一雇主工作的“对雇员有监督权的人”。

51 Significantly, as related to the third category, SOX also mandated that public companies' audit committees establish procedures for internal complaints and reporting of suspected abuses within the company.

51 值得注意的是，与第三类相关，萨班斯法案还要求上市公司的审计委员会制定内部投诉和报告公司内部可疑滥用行为的程序。

52 SOX and other laws further require a company's auditors and attorneys to report suspected violations internally before reporting to an outside agency.

52 SOX 和其他法律进一步要求公司的审计师和律师在向外部机构报告之前先在内部报告可疑的违规行为。

53 Commentators have noted that the internal reporting regime under SOX has been widely integrated into corporate compliance programs over the past 15 years.

53 评论家指出，SOX 规定的内部报告制度在过去 15 年中已广泛纳入公司合规计划。

SOX allows employees who allege that they have been penalized for their reporting activity or for their assistance to law enforcement to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor within 180 days of the alleged retaliatory conduct (or their awareness of such conduct), and they can bring an action in federal court only if the Secretary does not act on their complaint within 180 days of it being filed.

SOX 允许声称因举报活动或协助执法而受到处罚的员工在涉嫌报复行为（或他们意识到此类行为）后 180 天内向劳工部长提出投诉，并且只有当劳工部长在提出投诉后 180 天内未对其采取行动时，他们才可以向联邦法院提起诉讼。

55 As for remedies, employees are entitled to reinstatement, backpay, and special damages (which may include, for example, damages for emotional injury).

55 至于补救措施，员工有权获得复职、欠薪和特殊损害赔偿（可能包括精神伤害损害赔偿等）。

While SOX therefore afforded employees particular anti-retaliation protections for internal and external reporting prior to Dodd-Frank, the 2010 law provides certain more generous protections for individuals who are considered whistleblowers under that statute.

因此，在多德弗兰克法案之前，SOX 为员工提供了针对内部和外部报告的特殊反报复保护，而 2010 年法律为根据该法规被视为举报人的个人提供了某些更慷慨的保护。

57 In contrast to SOX, Dodd-Frank does not require filing an administrative complaint before suing in court for retaliation, provides a longer statute of limitations (between six and ten years, depending on the circumstances), and offers reinstatement and double backpay as remedies.

57 与 SOX 相比，多德弗兰克法案不要求在向法庭起诉报复之前提出行政申诉，提供更长的诉讼时效（根据具体情况，在六到十年之间），并提供恢复和双倍欠薪作为补救措施。

58 In terms of protected activity, Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provision prohibits an employer from retaliating against a "whistleblower" "because of" three types of activity.

58 在受保护的活动方面，多德弗兰克法案的反报复条款禁止雇主“因为”三种类型的活动而对“举报人”进行报复。

First, the provision protects whistleblowers who provide information regarding securities law violations to the SEC.

首先，该条款保护向 SEC 提供有关证券法违法行为信息的举报人。

59 Second, the provision also applies to whistleblowers who assist the SEC in an investigation or proceeding.

59 其次，该规定也适用于协助 SEC 调查或诉讼的举报人。

60 Third, and most relevant to Digital Realty , the anti-retaliation provision further specifies that it protects whistleblowers who "mak[e] disclosures that are required or protected under [SOX]," among other laws.

60 第三，与 Digital Realty 最相关的是，反报复条款进一步规定，它保护“根据 [SOX] 等法律要求或保护的信息披露”的举报人。

Table 1 provides a comparison between the anti-retaliation provisions in SOX and Dodd-Frank.

表 1 提供了 SOX 和多德弗兰克法案中反报复条款的比较。

(2) files, testifies in, or participates in a proceeding relating to an alleged violation of any rule or law relating to alleged securities fraud violations.

(2) 提交、作证或参与与涉嫌违反与涉嫌证券欺诈行为有关的任何规则或法律有关的诉讼。

(2 ) initiates, testifies in, or assists in any investigation or judicial or administrative action of the SEC basedupon or related to such information; or

(2) 发起、作证或协助 SEC 基于此类信息或与此类信息相关的任何调查或司法或行政行动；或

(3 ) makes disclosures that are required or protected under [SOX], this chapter .

(3) 进行 [SOX] 本章要求或保护的披露。

。

and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC.

以及受 SEC 管辖的任何其他法律、规则或法规。

Yes ; Must file a complaint with Secretary of Labor prior to suing in federal court 64

是的；在联邦法院提起诉讼之前必须向劳工部长提出申诉 64

Complaint with Secretary of Labor: Not later than 180 days after the date on which the violation occurs (or after the date on which the employee became aware of the violation) 65

向劳工部长投诉：不晚于违规行为发生之日起（或员工意识到违规行为之日起）180 天 65

Federal court complaint: Within 180 days of filing the complaint with the Secretary of Labor, if the Secretary has not issued a final decision 66

联邦法院申诉：如果劳工部长尚未发布最终决定，则在向劳工部长提交申诉后 180 天内 66

Not more than three years after the date when facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known to the employee, but in no circumstances more than 10 years after the date on which the violation occurs 67

自雇员了解或理应了解与诉讼权相关的重要事实之日起不超过三年，但在任何情况下都不超过违规行为发生之日后 10 年 67

Relief for an individual prevailing in an action brought under Section 922 shall include:

根据第 922 条提起的诉讼中胜诉的个人的救济应包括：

The third category of protected activity under Dodd-Frank, which includes the reference to SOX, does not itself suggest that the whistleblower needs to have made any disclosures to the SEC in order to recover.

《多德弗兰克法案》规定的第三类受保护活动（包括提及 SOX）本身并不表明举报人需要向 SEC 披露任何信息才能恢复。

70 And because SOX, in turn, protects an employee from retaliation for internal reporting, 71 it seems plausible that the Dodd-Frank provision could encompass internal reporters.

70 而且，由于《萨班斯法案》反过来又保护员工免受内部报告的报复，71 多德弗兰克法案似乎可以涵盖内部报告者。

However, the definition of the term "whistleblower" in Section 922 of Dodd-Frank complicates reaching a conclusion that internal whistleblowers are protected under the Act.

然而，《多德-弗兰克法案》第 922 条中“举报人”一词的定义使得内部举报人受到该法案保护的结论变得复杂化。

The definition refers to individuals who provide "information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission , in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission," 72 suggesting that an individual must report to the SEC to benefit from the subsection's protections.

该定义指的是“以委员会规则或法规规定的方式向委员会提供与违反证券法有关的信息”的个人，72这表明个人必须向 SEC 报告才能受益于该小节的保护。

This tension between Dodd-Frank's definition of the term "whistleblower" and its incorporation of SOX in the anti-retaliation provision is at the heart of Digital Realty .

多德弗兰克法案对“举报人”一词的定义与将 SOX 纳入反报复条款之间的紧张关系是 Digital Realty 的核心。

That case began when Paul Somers, as a Vice President at Digital Realty, a publicly traded real estate investment trust, 73 complained internally to the company's management regarding alleged securities law violations.

该案始于保罗·萨默斯 (Paul Somers) 作为上市房地产投资信托公司 Digital Realty 的副总裁 73 向公司管理层内部投诉涉嫌违反证券法的行为。

74 Digital Realty fired Somers soon afterwards, an adverse action that Somers alleged violated Section 922.

74 Digital Realty 很快就解雇了 Somers，Somers 声称这一不利行为违反了第 922 条。

75 Somers filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which dismissed the suit because he did "not report any alleged law violations to the SEC." 76 On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit), 77 the appellate court ruled that Somers was entitled to sue under Dodd-Frank, even though he did not take the additional step of reporting his concerns to the SEC.

75 萨默斯向美国加利福尼亚州北区地方法院提起诉讼，该法院驳回了诉讼，因为他“没有向 SEC 报告任何涉嫌违法的行为”。 76 在向美国第九巡回上诉法院（第九巡回法院）上诉时，77 上诉法院裁定萨默斯有权根据《多德弗兰克法案》提起诉讼，尽管他没有采取额外步骤向 SEC 报告他的担忧。

78 The Second Circuit reached the same result in a similar case in 2015.

78 第二巡回法院在 2015 年的类似案件中也得出了相同的结果。

79 But the Fifth Circuit took a different view in 2013, ruling that a "whistleblower" must have reported a complaint to the SEC in order to recover under Dodd-Frank's whistleblower provisions.

79 但第五巡回法院在 2013 年采取了不同的观点，裁定“举报人”必须向 SEC 举报，才能根据多德弗兰克法案的举报人条款获得赔偿。

80 These decisions created a circuit split over the proper reading of Dodd-Frank, setting the stage for Supreme Court review.

80 这些决定在正确解读《多德弗兰克法案》的问题上造成了巡回法院的分歧，为最高法院的审查奠定了基础。

The lower court in Digital Realty reasoned that Section 922's specific reference to SOX, and the overall purpose of the statute, indicated Congress's intent to protect internal whistleblowers as well as those who report to the SEC.

Digital Realty 下级法院认为，第 922 条对 SOX 的具体提及以及该法规的总体目的表明国会有意保护内部举报人和向 SEC 报告的人。

81 Specifically, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that a strict application of the "whistleblower" definition would effectively read the third category of protected activity of the anti-retaliation provision out of the statute because that class of protected individuals would be narrowed to the point of meaninglessness.

81 具体而言，第九巡回法院认为，严格适用“举报人”定义将有效地将反报复条款的第三类受保护活动从法规中解读出来，因为该类别的受保护个人将被缩小到毫无意义的程度。

82 In implementing the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision through regulations, the SEC had defined the term "whistleblower" to encompass internal whistleblowers, explaining that a more limited reading would chill employees' use of valuable internal reporting processes.

82 在通过法规实施多德弗兰克反报复条款时，美国证券交易委员会将“举报人”一词定义为包括内部举报人，并解释说，更有限的解读会阻碍员工使用有价值的内部报告流程。

83 The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Second Circuit that the SEC's reading of the anti-retaliation provision was entitled to deference under Chevron principles, 84 even if the statute's definition of the term "whistleblower" cast some doubt on that interpretation.

83 第九巡回法院同意第二巡回法院的观点，即根据雪佛龙原则，美国证券交易委员会对反报复条款的解读有权得到尊重，84 即使该法规对“举报人”一词的定义对该解释产生了一些疑问。

The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, ruled in Asadi v.

另一方面，第五巡回法院在阿萨迪诉。

G.E.

通用电气

Energy (USA), L.L.C.

能源（美国）有限责任公司

that in order to qualify as a "whistleblower" under Dodd-Frank, an individual must report a suspected violation to the SEC.

为了获得《多德弗兰克法案》规定的“举报人”资格，个人必须向 SEC 报告涉嫌违规行为。

86 In analyzing the statutory language, the Fifth Circuit determined that the reference to SOX in the anti-retaliation provision does not expand the definition of a "whistleblower" and concluded that it would be inappropriate to read the words "to the Commission" out of the definition.

86 在分析法定语言时，第五巡回法院确定，反报复条款中提及 SOX 并没有扩大“举报人”的定义，并得出结论认为，将“向委员会”一词从定义中读出是不合适的。

87 The Fifth Circuit hypothesized at least one scenario in which the third category of Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections would apply under a more limited reading of the definition.

87 第五巡回法院假设了至少一种情况，其中第三类《多德弗兰克法案》举报人保护将在对定义的更有限的解读下适用。

Specifically, the appellate court reasoned that an employee who reports both internally and to the SEC, but is retaliated against only "because of" the internal report (e.g., if the employer was unaware of the report to the SEC) would qualify as a "whistleblower" under the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of Section 922.

具体来说，上诉法院认为，根据第五巡回法院对第 922 条的解释，如果雇员既向内部报告又向 SEC 报告，但仅“因为”内部报告而遭到报复（例如，如果雇主不知道向 SEC 报告），则有资格成为“举报人”。

88 The Fifth Circuit further reasoned that the anti-retaliation scheme for internal reporting that exists under SOX would essentially be rendered "moot" if the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provisions were to apply because whistleblowers would be more inclined to take advantage of Dodd-Frank's stronger protections.

88 第五巡回法院进一步推断，如果适用多德-弗兰克法案的反报复条款，SOX 下存在的内部报告反报复计划基本上将变得“没有实际意义”，因为举报人将更倾向于利用多德-弗兰克法案更强有力的保护措施。

In ruling in favor of Digital Realty and resolving the circuit split, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the definition of "whistleblower" provided "an unequivocal answer" that resolved the case, affirming the principle that "[w]hen a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition." 90 The Court distinguished the case from prior instances in which it did not hold a statutory definition to control because, unlike those cases, the results in Digital Realty would not be incongruous with Congress's regulatory scheme.

在做出有利于 Digital Realty 的裁决并解决电路分裂问题时，最高法院一致认为“举报人”的定义提供了解决案件的“明确答案”，并确认了“当法规包含明确定义时，我们必须遵循该定义”的原则。 90 法院将此案与之前的案例区分开来，在之前的案例中，法院没有采用法定定义进行控制，因为与这些案例不同，Digital Realty 案的结果不会与国会的监管计划不一致。

91 Namely, the Court emphasized several times throughout its opinion that the purpose of the enhanced whistleblower provision was "to motivate people who know of securities law violations to tell the SEC ," quoting Dodd-Frank's Senate Report.

91 也就是说，法院在其意见中多次强调，加强举报人条款的目的是“激励了解证券法违规行为的人向 SEC 举报”，并引用多德-弗兰克法案的参议院报告。

92 Moreover, the Court rejected Somers's arguments that requiring reporting to the SEC to qualify as a "whistleblower" would lead to results incompatible with Congress's intent.

92 此外，法院驳回了萨默斯的论点，即要求向美国证券交易委员会报告才能获得“举报人”资格将导致结果与国会的意图不符。

93 For example, echoing the Fifth Circuit's reasoning, the Court reasoned that the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision's reference to SOX would still be meaningful under the narrower definition because it would protect those who report both internally and to the SEC, but incur retaliation for the internal report.

93 例如，法院呼应第五巡回法院的推理，认为多德-弗兰克反报复条款提及 SOX 在较窄的定义下仍然有意义，因为它将保护那些既向内部报告又向 SEC 报告但因内部报告而招致报复的人。

94 The Court observed that such a scenario may in fact be commonplace because, as data from the SEC presented to the Court showed, approximately 80% of those receiving SEC whistleblower awards in 2016 had indeed reported internally before making their complaints to the SEC.

94法院指出，这种情况实际上可能很常见，因为正如 SEC 向法院提供的数据显示，在 2016 年获得 SEC 举报人奖励的人中，大约 80% 在向 SEC 投诉之前确实进行了内部举报。

With regard to the ruling's impact on the enforcement of federal securities law, Digital Realty eliminated a potential avenue of relief for internal whistleblowers, a population which, according to recent SEC and other statistics, appears to be historically larger than the pool of external whistleblowers.

关于该裁决对联邦证券法执行的影响，Digital Realty 消除了内部举报人的潜在救济途径，根据最近的 SEC 和其他统计数据，内部举报人的数量在历史上似乎比外部举报人的数量还要多。

96 The Digital Realty decision clarifies that internal reporters must rely on the protections in SOX, which, as discussed above, are in significant respects less advantageous than those provided under Dodd-Frank.

96 Digital Realty 的决定澄清了内部报告者必须依赖 SOX 中的保护措施，如上所述，这些保护措施在很多方面不如《多德弗兰克法案》中提供的保护措施有利。

While internal and external whistleblower reporting are each still protected under federal law, some commentators note that the decision, particularly when combined with large incentive awards coming out of the SEC whistleblower program, tips the scale towards incentivizing reporting of securities law violations to the authorities rather than deferring to public companies' internal compliance efforts, 97 which some commentators argue will lead to greater risk of noncompliance with federal law.

虽然内部和外部举报人的报告仍然受到联邦法律的保护，但一些评论员指出，该决定，特别是与 SEC 举报人计划提供的巨额奖励相结合，会倾向于激励向当局报告证券法违规行为，而不是尊重上市公司的内部合规工作，97一些评论员认为这将导致更大的不遵守联邦法律的风险。

Digital Realty's ultimate impact on corporations that are subject to Dodd-Frank's whistleblower provisions is unclear.

Digital Realty 对受多德弗兰克法案举报人条款约束的公司的最终影响尚不清楚。

In supporting the petitioner's arguments in Digital Realty , notable amici like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce favored the narrower "whistleblower" definition because, in its view, an expansive definition encompassing internal reporters would have increased costs for companies faced with more whistleblower actions in federal court, while spurning internal and administrative processes set up by SOX that it argued are often more efficient in weeding out non-meritorious claims.

在支持 Digital Realty 中请愿人的论点时，美国商会等知名人士支持较狭义的“举报人”定义，因为在其看来，包含内部记者的广泛定义会增加公司在联邦法院面临更多举报人诉讼的成本，同时拒绝 SOX 建立的内部和行政程序，他们认为这些程序在剔除无根据的索赔方面往往更有效。

99 Nonetheless, while Digital Realty will protect public companies against federal lawsuits under Dodd-Frank from internal whistleblowers, there may be other externalities created by the decision.

99 尽管如此，虽然 Digital Realty 将保护上市公司免受多德弗兰克法案中内部举报人提起的联邦诉讼，但该决定可能会产生其他外部因素。

Specifically, because, as commentators have noted, the Court's ruling may have the practical effect of increasing whistleblower reports made directly to the SEC over attempted internal resolutions, the ruling could potentially lead to increased regulatory action and greater costs for companies.

具体而言，正如评论人士所指出的，由于法院的裁决可能会产生实际效果，增加直接向 SEC 就内部决议尝试进行举报的举报，因此该裁决可能会导致监管行动的增加和公司成本的增加。

100 Whether these costs outpace any increased litigation costs that could have resulted from a different ruling in Digital Realty remains to be seen.

100 这些成本是否超过 Digital Realty 的不同裁决可能导致的诉讼成本增加仍有待观察。

Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank directs the SEC to promulgate a rule requiring reporting companies 101 to disclose in certain public filings the ratio of (a) the median annual total compensation of all of its employees (i.e., the median employee's compensation) to (b) the annual total compensation of its chief executive officer.

《多德-弗兰克法案》第 953(b) 条指示 SEC 颁布一项规则，要求报告公司 101 在某些公开文件中披露 (a) 所有员工的年总薪酬中位数（即员工薪酬中位数）与 (b) 首席执行官的年总薪酬的比率。

102 The SEC adopted the final pay ratio disclosure rule (the Rule) 103 on August 5, 2015 by a 3-2 vote of the Commissioners.

102 美国证券交易委员会于 2015 年 8 月 5 日以 3 比 2 的委员投票通过了最终薪酬比率披露规则（以下简称规则）103。

104 The vote followed a notice and comment process which drew nearly 300,000 comment letters 105 following release of the proposed rule in September 2013.

104 此次投票是在通知和评论过程之后进行的，在 2013 年 9 月发布拟议规则后，该过程吸引了近 300,000 封评论信 105。

106 Because the SEC required compliance with the Rule to begin for the first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2017, 107 the first wave of companies made their pay ratio disclosures earlier this year in annual statements and in proxy materials in advance of annual shareholder meetings.

106 由于 SEC 要求从 2017 年 1 月 1 日或之后开始的第一个财政年度开始遵守该规则，107 今年早些时候，第一批公司在年度股东大会之前在年度报表和代理材料中披露了薪酬比率。

While the first major disclosure (in which Honeywell reported a 333:1 pay ratio) 108 drew considerable media attention, 109 companies have disclosed a very wide range of ratios to date.

虽然第 108 次重大披露（其中霍尼韦尔公布的薪酬比率为 333:1）引起了媒体的广泛关注，但迄今为止已有 109 家公司披露了非常广泛的薪酬比率。

110

The pay ratio provision is contained within Title IX of Dodd-Frank, in a subtitle concerning "Accountability and Executive Compensation." This subtitle includes several provisions geared towards transparency and shareholder involvement in matters of executive compensation.

薪酬比率条款包含在《多德弗兰克法案》第九章中有关“问责制和高管薪酬”的副标题中。该副标题包括几项旨在提高高管薪酬问题透明度和股东参与度的条款。

111 Perhaps most notably, Section 951, the so-called "say on pay" provision, requires that shareholders be given the opportunity to cast advisory votes as to executive compensation at annual shareholder meetings at least once every three years.

111 也许最值得注意的是，第 951 条，即所谓的“薪酬发言权”条款，要求股东有机会至少每三年一次在年度股东大会上就高管薪酬进行咨询投票。

112 Moreover, Section 953(a) mandates that issuers further make an executive "pay versus performance" disclosure in their annual proxy statements, 113 which would require disclosure of executive compensation alongside the company's total shareholder return as a measure of performance.

112 此外，第 953(a) 条要求发行人在其年度委托书中进一步披露高管的“薪酬与业绩”，113 这将要求披露高管薪酬以及公司股东总回报，作为业绩衡量标准。

114

Title IX's legislative history arguably reflects that the law's various provisions on executive compensation were propelled by the view that compensation arrangements incentivized risky behavior by executives, contributing to the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

《第九条》的立法历史可以说反映了该法关于高管薪酬的各种规定是由这样一种观点推动的，即薪酬安排会激励高管的风险行为，从而导致 2007-2009 年的金融危机。

115 While the legislative history for Dodd-Frank's pay ratio disclosure provision is sparse, the SEC, in adopting the Rule, concluded that a major purpose of the Rule is to better enable shareholders to cast their "say on pay" votes.

115 虽然多德弗兰克法案薪酬比率披露条款的立法历史很少，但美国证券交易委员会在采用该规则时得出的结论是，该规则的主要目的是更好地使股东能够投票“薪酬发言权”。

116 This conclusion finds a measure of support in the legislative history for the rest of the subtitle, most notably, the "pay versus performance" disclosure requirements found in Section 953(a) of the Act.

116 这一结论在立法历史中找到了对该副标题其余部分的一定程度的支持，最值得注意的是该法案第 953(a) 条中的“薪酬与绩效”披露要求。

117 The Senate Report's discussion of the "pay versus performance" disclosure specifies that the rule is intended to "show[] the relationship between executive compensation and the financial performance of the issuer" as a metric to assist shareholders in their evaluation of executive pay.

117 参议院报告对“薪酬与绩效”披露的讨论明确指出，该规则旨在“显示高管薪酬与发行人财务业绩之间的关系”，作为协助股东评估高管薪酬的衡量标准。

118 The Senate Report further states that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs believed that the disclosure will "add to corporate responsibility as firms will have to more clearly disclose and explain executive pay" and "allow shareowners to evaluate the performance of the compensation committee and board in setting executive pay, to assess pay-for-performance links and to optimize their role of overseeing executive compensation through such means as proxy voting." 119 The legislative history of the "pay versus performance" provision could be viewed as providing insights into the meaning of its neighboring provision concerning the pay ratio disclosure.

118 参议院报告进一步指出，银行、住房和城市事务委员会认为，这一披露将“增加企业责任，因为公司必须更明确地披露和解释高管薪酬”，并“允许股东评估薪酬委员会和董事会在制定高管薪酬方面的表现，评估绩效薪酬联系，并通过代理投票等方式优化其监督高管薪酬的作用。” 119“薪酬与绩效”条款的立法历史可以被视为提供了对其相邻条款有关薪酬比率披露的含义的见解。

120

The SEC Commissioners who voted on the Rule, public commenters, and other commentators have differed in how they have interpreted the motivations for and value of the pay ratio disclosure rule.

对该规则进行投票的 SEC 委员、公众评论者和其他评论者对于薪酬比率披露规则的动机和价值的解释各不相同。

Former SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White recognized that "[t]o say that the views on the pay ratio disclosure requirement are divided is an obvious understatement," 121 while former SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar remarked that the requirement is either "a boon or a bane, depending on one's perspective." 122 In addition to helping to inform "say on pay" votes, some public commenters noted that they supported the Rule because they believed it would deter executive pay practices that led to the financial crisis, and that the Rule would reduce inequitable wealth distribution in the United States.

前 SEC 主席玛丽·乔·怀特 (Mary Jo White) 承认，“说对薪酬比率披露要求存在分歧的观点显然是轻描淡写”121，而前 SEC 委员路易斯·阿吉拉尔 (Luis Aguilar) 则表示，该要求“要么是福，要么是祸，取决于个人的观点”。 122除了帮助为“薪酬发言权”投票提供信息外，一些公众评论者指出，他们支持该规则，因为他们相信该规则将阻止导致金融危机的高管薪酬做法，并且该规则将减少美国的不平等财富分配。

123

By contrast, the dissenting Commissioners issued statements in which they argued that the Rule would have no apparent shareholder benefits, 124 especially given the information already available on CEO pay.

相比之下，持反对意见的委员发表了声明，他们认为该规则不会给股东带来明显的利益，124 特别是考虑到已经有关于首席执行官薪酬的信息。

125 The dissenting Commissioners viewed the Rule as merely a "name and shame" exercise, 126 pointing unfavorably to an AFL-CIO statement indicating that the organization believed that "[d]isclosing this pay ratio will shame companies into lowering CEO pay." 127 One of the dissenting Commissioners expressed concern about further steps that may be taken at various levels of government, such as state efforts to tie their corporate tax rates or awards of public contracts to company pay ratios.

125 持反对意见的委员们认为该规则仅仅是一种“点名羞辱”的做法，126 不利地指出美国劳工联合会-产业工会联合会的一份声明，该声明表明该组织认为“披露这一薪酬比率将使公司蒙羞，从而降低首席执行官的薪酬。” 127 一位持反对意见的委员对各级政府可能采取的进一步措施表示担忧，例如各州将公司税率或公共合同授予与公司薪酬比率挂钩。

128 Other commenters focused on the costs of compliance with the Rule.

128 其他评论者关注的是遵守该规则的成本。

129 In this regard, the SEC estimated that initial compliance costs would total approximately $1.3 billion, given, for example, the complexities involved in collecting payroll and accounting information for all relevant employees, particularly those residing in other countries.

129 在这方面，美国证券交易委员会估计，初始合规成本总计约为 13 亿美元，例如，考虑到收集所有相关员工（尤其是居住在其他国家的员工）的工资和会计信息的复杂性。

130

The pay ratio disclosure rule requires that reporting companies disclose the ratio of their median worker's pay to their CEO's pay in certain public SEC filings, including registration statements, proxy and information statements, and annual reports.

薪酬比率披露规则要求报告公司在某些公开的 SEC 文件（包括注册声明、委托书和信息声明以及年度报告）中披露其工人薪酬中位数与其首席执行官薪酬的比率。

131 Certain issuers are exempted from the Rule, including emerging growth companies 132 and smaller reporting companies.

131 某些发行人不受该规则的约束，包括新兴成长型公司 132 和规模较小的报告公司。

133 In setting forth the "formula" for the pay ratio calculation, as discussed in more detail below, the SEC opted for a largely flexible approach that it regarded as being compliant with applicable statutory requirements while taking due consideration of compliance costs.

133 在制定薪酬比率计算的“公式”时（如下文更详细讨论的），美国证券交易委员会选择了一种很大程度上灵活的方法，它认为这种方法符合适用的法定要求，同时适当考虑了合规成本。

134

Calculation of A nnual T otal C ompensation .

年度总薪酬的计算。

Issuers are already required to use particular standards in calculating and disclosing executive pay, which the SEC has set forth in Item 402(c) of Regulation S-K.

发行人已被要求在计算和披露高管薪酬时使用特定标准，SEC 在 S-K 条例第 402(c) 项中对此进行了规定。

135 Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank and the Rule specify that the same method should be used to determine the "annual total compensation" of an employee for purposes of calculating the pay ratio disclosure.

135 《多德-弗兰克法案》第 953(b) 条和该规则规定，为了计算薪酬比率披露，应使用相同的方法来确定雇员的“年度总薪酬”。

136 Registrants are permitted to use reasonable estimates of annual total compensation, other than for the CEO.

136 注册人可以使用对年度总薪酬的合理估计，但首席执行官除外。

137

Employees .

员工。

The statutory language in Dodd-Frank states that the median worker-CEO pay ratio is to be calculated using the annual total compensation of " all employees of the registrant." 138 The Rule therefore takes an inclusive approach, requiring registrants to include part-time, temporary or seasonal employees, as well as employees situated in the U.S. or abroad, employed by the company or any of its consolidated subsidiaries in its calculations.

多德弗兰克法案的法定语言规定，工人与首席执行官薪酬中位数的比率应使用“注册人的所有员工”的年度总薪酬来计算。 138 因此，该规则采取包容性方法，要求注册人在计算中包括兼职、临时或季节性员工，以及公司或其任何合并子公司雇用的位于美国或国外的员工。

139 Annualizing the pay of part-time or temporary/seasonal employees—that is, to reflect full-time or full-year equivalents—is not permitted, although the pay of a permanent employee who only worked part of the year (e.g., a new hire) may be annualized.

139 不允许对兼职或临时/季节性员工的工资进行年度化（即反映全职或全年的同等工资），尽管仅在一年中部分时间工作的永久员工（例如新员工）的工资可以进行年度化。

140 The "employee" definition does not include contractors that are employed by and whose compensation is determined by an unaffiliated third party.

140“雇员”的定义不包括受无关联第三方雇用且其报酬由无关联第三方确定的承包商。

141

As to foreign employees, in recognition of certain difficulties that may arise in including such workers' compensation in the pay ratio calculation, the Rule provides for two potential exemptions:

对于外籍雇员，考虑到将此类工人的补偿纳入工资比例计算可能会出现一定的困难，该规则规定了两种可能的豁免：

Overall, the Rule's definition of "employee" is quite broad.

总体而言，该规则对“雇员”的定义相当广泛。

In his dissenting statement, one of the Commissioners, Daniel Gallagher, stated that he would have limited the definition to full-time U.S. employees, arguing that the SEC had the authority to interpret the statutory language in such a manner.

委员之一丹尼尔·加拉格尔 (Daniel Gallagher) 在他的反对声明中表示，他会将定义限制为全职美国雇员，并认为 SEC 有权以这种方式解释法定语言。

145 One difficulty voiced by registrants has been that the "employee" definition under the Rule does not match up in all respects with the definition of "employee" for other purposes under the law, 146 making it difficult to use existing records and classification systems as a basis for pay ratio calculations.

145 注册人提出的一个难题是，该规则中的“雇员”定义在所有方面与法律中用于其他目的的“雇员”定义并不相符，146 使得很难使用现有记录和分类系统作为薪酬比率计算的基础。

In particular, commenters and registrants were concerned that the Rule appeared to define "contractor" more narrowly than that term is traditionally defined under employment and tax law.

特别是，评论者和注册者担心，该规则对“承包商”的定义似乎比就业法和税法中该术语的传统定义更狭窄。

147 However, more recent SEC guidance has clarified that registrants may use their existing payroll and tax records as a basis for determining their employee pool, at least for purposes of excluding independent contractors.

147 然而，最近的 SEC 指南明确指出，注册人可以使用其现有的工资和税务记录作为确定其员工池的基础，至少是为了排除独立承包商。

148

Method of I dentifying the " M edian Employee ." Under the SEC pay ratio rule, the registrant may choose a "reasonable method" to identify the median employee that is appropriately tailored to their business, including using reasonable estimates both to identify the median employee and to calculate the annual total compensation of employees (other than the CEO).

我识别“中位数员工”的方法。根据 SEC 薪酬比率规则，注册人可以选择一种“合理的方法”来确定适合其业务的员工中位数，包括使用合理的估计来确定员工中位数并计算员工（首席执行官除外）的年度总薪酬。

149 Such methods may include using a statistical sampling of employees or any consistently applied compensation measure (e.g ., using payroll or tax records), 150 even if those records do not include every element of annual total compensation.

149 此类方法可能包括使用员工统计抽样或任何一致应用的薪酬措施（例如，使用工资或税务记录），150 即使这些记录不包括年度总薪酬的每个要素。

151 Regardless, registrants must disclose the methodology that they use in their public filing.

151 无论如何，注册人必须披露他们在公开备案中使用的方法。

152

Calculation D ate .

计算 D ate 。

A registrant is able to select a determination date within the last three months of a company's fiscal year for identifying the median employee.

注册者可以选择公司财政年度最后三个月内的确定日期来确定中位数员工。

153 While the initial proposed rule contained a date certain (i.e., the last date of the company's fiscal year), the Rule departed from the proposal due to considerations such as disproportionate effects the date certain may have on registrants who employ a large portion of seasonal workers at the end of the year.

153 虽然最初提议的规则包含一个特定日期（即公司财政年度的最后一天），但由于考虑到特定日期可能对在年底雇用大量季节性工人的注册人产生不成比例的影响，该规则与提案背道而驰。

154 The Rule also incorporated a flexible date in order to leave sufficient time for companies to conduct the disclosure calculations at year-end.

154 该规则还纳入了灵活的日期，以便为公司留出足够的时间在年底进行披露计算。

155 The date chosen must be disclosed in public filings, and if companies change the date used from one year to the next, they must describe the reason for the change.

155 所选择的日期必须在公开文件中披露，如果公司将使用的日期从一年更改为下一年，则必须说明更改的原因。

156

Calculation of M edian E very T hree Y ears .

计算三年耳中位数E。

Registrants need to identify the median employee every three years, rather than every year, if "during a registrant's last completed fiscal year there has been no change in its employee population or employee compensation arrangements that it reasonably believes would result in significant change to its pay ratio disclosure." 157 The pay ratio disclosure itself (including that median employee's compensation and the CEO's compensation), however, must be calculated each year.

如果“注册人在上一个完整的财政年度期间，其员工人数或员工薪酬安排没有发生任何变化，且其合理地认为会导致其薪酬比率披露发生重大变化”，则注册人需要每三年而不是每年确定员工中位数。 157 然而，薪酬比率披露本身（包括员工薪酬中位数和首席执行官的薪酬）必须每年进行计算。

158

Cost of L iving A djustments .

生活费用调整。

In identifying the median employee and calculating their annual total compensation, the registrant may adjust the annual total compensation of its employees in jurisdictions other than the jurisdiction in which the CEO resides to account for the cost of living in the CEO's jurisdiction.

在确定员工中位数并计算其年度总薪酬时，注册人可以调整首席执行官居住司法管辖区以外的其他司法管辖区的员工的年度总薪酬，以考虑首席执行官所在司法管辖区的生活成本。

If such adjustments are used, the registrant must also disclose in its public filings non-adjusted figures for the median employee's annual total compensation and the pay ratio.

如果使用此类调整，注册人还必须在其公开文件中披露未调整的中位员工年度总薪酬和薪酬比率的数字。

159

Additional information .

附加信息。

Registrants are permitted, but not required, to supplement the pay ratio disclosure required by the Rule with additional information or supplemental ratios, such as, for example, a version of the ratio using only U.S. employees.

注册人可以（但不要求）用附加信息或补充比率来补充规则要求的薪酬比率披露，例如仅使用美国雇员的比率版本。

160 The supplemental information cannot be misleading or displayed with more prominence than the mandated ratio.

160 补充信息不得具有误导性，也不得以比规定比例更为突出的方式显示。

161

The main practical problem identified with the Rule's flexible approach is that the resulting pay ratio figures may not necessarily allow for easy "apples to apples" comparisons between companies, potentially making it a less useful metric for shareholders.

该规则灵活方法所面临的主要实际问题是，由此产生的薪酬比率数据可能不一定允许公司之间进行简单的“同类”比较，这可能使其成为对股东来说不太有用的衡量标准。

162 However, the SEC explicitly stated in formulating the Rule that it believed the ratio should be "designed to allow shareholders to better understand and assess a particular registrant's compensation and pay ratio disclosures rather than to facilitate a comparison of this information from one registrant to another." 163 In any event, commentators have begun to advise, given that public analysis may indeed focus on comparisons to peer companies, that registrants take advantage of permitted methods to contextualize their disclosure (such as providing additional ratios or information) and carefully consider how to use their permitted discretion under the Rule, 164 suggesting that certain best practices may develop over time.

162 然而，美国证券交易委员会在制定该规则时明确表示，它认为该比率应“旨在让股东更好地理解和评估特定注册人的薪酬和薪酬比率披露，而不是促进一个注册人与另一个注册人的信息进行比较”。 163 无论如何，鉴于公共分析可能确实侧重于与同行公司的比较，评论员已开始建议注册人利用允许的方法将其披露情况化（例如提供额外的比率或信息），并仔细考虑如何使用规则允许的自由裁量权，164 表明某些最佳实践可能会随着时间的推移而发展。

However, the lack of purely comparable ratios among registrants may factor into potential challenges relating to the Rule, 165 although this would likely also need to be weighed against the cost savings to registrants that are gained from having greater flexibility in applying the rule.

然而，注册人之间缺乏纯粹可比的比率可能会成为与该规则相关的潜在挑战，165 尽管这可能还需要权衡注册人因应用该规则具有更大灵活性而节省的成本。

166

Given the split of opinions regarding the pay ratio rule highlighted through the SEC's adoption of the Rule, public comments, and further commentary, the pay ratio rule may become the subject of a challenge in court.

鉴于美国证券交易委员会通过该规则、公众意见和进一步评论所凸显的关于薪酬比率规则的意见分歧，薪酬比率规则可能会成为法庭上受到质疑的主题。

167 Potential challenges to the Rule would likely be based on requirements for agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and securities law requirements for SEC rulemaking.

167对该规则的潜在挑战可能是基于《行政程序法》(APA) 下的机构规则制定要求和 SEC 规则制定的证券法要求。

168 Under the APA, a court can "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be .

168 根据 APA，法院可以“认定不合法并撤销机构的行动、调查结果和结论……”。

。

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 169 Under this standard, a court may invalidate agency determinations that fail to "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'" 170 Under federal securities laws, the SEC is also required to "consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation." 171 These two principles often work in tandem in a court's assessment of rulemaking by the SEC.

任意、反复无常、滥用自由裁量权或其他不符合法律的行为。” 169 根据这一标准，如果机构的决定未能“检查相关数据并为其行动提供令人满意的解释，包括‘发现的事实与做出的选择之间的合理联系’”，则法院可能会使机构的决定无效。 170 根据联邦证券法，美国证券交易委员会还必须“除了保护投资者之外，还考虑该行动是否会促进效率、竞争和资本形成。” 171 这两项原则通常在法院对 SEC 规则制定的评估中同时发挥作用。

172 Several areas of potential challenge, identified by the dissenting Commissioners or other commentators, are discussed below.

172 下面讨论了持不同意见的委员或其他评论员指出的几个潜在挑战领域。

First, one dissenting Commissioner, Michael S.

首先，一位持异议的委员 Michael S.

Piwowar, posited that the SEC acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in not adequately considering the quantitative impact of certain flexible approaches permitted under the Rule on the accuracy or quality of the pay ratio disclosure.

Piwowar 认为，SEC 的行为是任意且反复无常的，没有充分考虑该规则允许的某些灵活方法对薪酬比率披露的准确性或质量的定量影响。

173 Specifically, Commissioner Piwowar questioned the effect of allowing for different methodologies in determining the median employee and the allowance for a 5% de minimis exception for foreign workers, among other aspects of the Rule.

173 具体来说，Piwowar 专员对该规则的其他方面以及在确定雇员中位数和给予外国工人 5% 最低限度例外的津贴时允许采用不同方法的效果提出了质疑。

174 In his view, the SEC should have assessed whether these allowances would result in material deviations from a strict "annual total compensation" approach under Item 402.

174 他认为，SEC 应该评估这些津贴是否会导致与第 402 项下严格的“年度总薪酬”方法的重大偏差。

175 The SEC's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis did, however, perform a study to analyze the potential effects on the pay ratio calculation of excluding different percentages of employees.

175 然而，美国证券交易委员会的经济和风险分析部门确实进行了一项研究，分析排除不同比例的员工对薪酬比率计算的潜在影响。

176 For example, it concluded that an exclusion of 5% of employees could result, under certain assumptions, in a 6.9% range of deviation, 177 which the SEC analyzed and believed to confirm that the 5% exclusion for non-U.S. employees would have de minimis effects on the ratio calculation.

176 例如，它的结论是，在某些假设下，排除 5% 的员工可能会导致 6.9% 的偏差范围，177 SEC 对此进行了分析，并认为确认排除 5% 的非美国员工将对比率计算产生微乎其微的影响。

178

Second, a plaintiff may challenge possible deficiencies in the SEC's analysis of the costs and benefits of the Rule.

其次，原告可能会对该规则的成本和收益分析中可能存在的缺陷提出质疑。

Under the APA and securities law principles, the D.C. Circuit has vacated rules where it found the SEC "acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed .

根据 APA 和证券法原则，华盛顿特区巡回法院撤销了其认为 SEC“因失败而任意而反复无常地行事的规则”。

。

adequately to assess the economic effects of a new rule." 179 While the SEC estimated the cost of compliance with the Rule at $1.3 billion, some argue, for example, that it should have further assessed the costs of specific portions of the Rule, such as the cost of allowing a flexible calculation date within three months of the end of the fiscal year.

充分评估新规则的经济影响。” 179 虽然 SEC 估计遵守该规则的成本为 13 亿美元，但一些人认为，例如，它应该进一步评估该规则特定部分的成本，例如允许在财政年度结束后三个月内灵活计算日期的成本。

180 At least one commentator is further critical that the SEC did not seek to quantify the benefits of the Rule in order to perform a quantitative cost-benefit analysis.

180 至少一位评论员进一步批评 SEC 并未寻求量化该规则的好处以进行定量成本效益分析。

181 In this vein, courts have imposed different, situation-specific requirements concerning the extent to which an agency needs to have sought to quantify benefits of a proposed rule.

181 在这方面，法院针对机构需要在多大程度上寻求量化拟议规则的利益，提出了不同的、针对具体情况的要求。

182

Third, some have suggested that the Rule may also be vulnerable to challenge due to the SEC's lack of investor testing evaluating how investors planned to use the pay ratio information.

第三，一些人认为，由于美国证券交易委员会缺乏评估投资者计划如何使用薪酬比率信息的投资者测试，该规则也可能容易受到挑战。

183 As pointed out by a dissenting Commissioner, Section 912 of Dodd-Frank allows specifically for such testing, 184 stating that "[f]or the purpose of evaluating any rule or program of the Commission .

183 正如一位持异议的委员所指出的，《多德-弗兰克法案》第 912 条专门允许进行此类测试，184 指出“或评估委员会任何规则或计划的目的……”。

。

the Commission may .

委员会可以。

。

engage in such temporary investor testing programs as the Commission determines are in the public interest or would protect investors." 185 Without empirical testing, observers argue that it is impossible to know whether investors anticipated or wished to use the pay ratio for direct comparison purposes among registrants, which would make the flexible aspects of the Rule more problematic.

参与委员会认为符合公共利益或保护投资者的临时投资者测试计划。” 185 观察人士认为，如果不进行实证检验，就不可能知道投资者是否预期或希望使用薪酬比率来进行注册人之间的直接比较，这将使该规则的灵活性方面更加成问题。

186 In Chamber of Commerce v.

186 在商会诉。

SEC , however, the D.C. Circuit declined to vacate a rule for the SEC's failure to develop empirical data to assess the benefits of a mutual fund having independent (as opposed to inside) chairpersons of their boards of directors, recognizing that "an agency need not–indeed cannot–base its every action on empirical data." 187

然而，美国证券交易委员会拒绝撤销一项规则，因为美国证券交易委员会未能开发经验数据来评估拥有独立（而不是内部）董事会主席的共同基金的好处，并认识到“机构不需要——实际上不能——将其每项行动都建立在经验数据的基础上。” 187

Legislatively, the Financial CHOICE Act passed by the House of Representatives in June 2017, which repeals many Dodd-Frank provisions, would also eliminate the pay ratio provision in Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank.

在立法方面，众议院于 2017 年 6 月通过的《金融选择法案》废除了《多德弗兰克法案》的许多条款，也将取消《多德弗兰克法案》第 953(b) 条中的薪资比率条款。

188 A repeal is not contemplated, however, by the version of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act passed by the Senate in March 2018.

188 然而，参议院 2018 年 3 月通过的《经济增长、监管救济和消费者保护法案》版本并未考虑废除该法案。

189 At the Commission level, on February 6, 2017, the SEC called for further comments on difficulties in complying with the Rule so that the SEC staff could promptly "reconsider" its implementation, 190 but it is currently unclear what, if any, action the SEC will take in response to the further comments.

189 在委员会层面，2017 年 2 月 6 日，SEC 呼吁就遵守该规则的困难提供进一步评论，以便 SEC 工作人员能够及时“重新考虑”其实施，190 但目前尚不清楚 SEC 将采取什么行动（如果有的话）来回应进一步的评论。

Apart from the disclosures required by Title IX, Dodd-Frank requires the SEC to promulgate and enforce certain other disclosure rules, which may provide further insight on how the pay ratio rule would be considered if challenged.

除了第九条要求的披露之外，《多德弗兰克法案》还要求美国证券交易委员会颁布并执行某些其他披露规则，这可能会为薪酬比率规则在受到质疑时如何考虑提供进一步的见解。

Specifically, Title XV, entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions," provides for the so-called "conflict minerals" 191 and "resource extraction" rules.

具体而言，题为“杂项规定”的第十五章规定了所谓的“冲突矿物”191 和“资源开采”规则。

192 These rules generally require disclosures regarding, respectively, the source of certain minerals used in a company's products and payments made to governments relating to commercial natural resource development.

192 这些规则通常要求分别披露公司产品中使用的某些矿物的来源以及向政府支付的与商业自然资源开发有关的款项。

193 Each of the rules was intended to prompt social and political change in foreign countries, 194 with the "conflict minerals" rule addressing the impact of mineral extraction on armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the "resource extraction" rule aimed at reducing government corruption in resource-rich nations.

193 每项规则都旨在促进外国的社会和政治变革，194 其中“冲突矿产”规则解决了刚果民主共和国（刚果民主共和国）武装冲突中矿物开采的影响，而“资源开采”规则则旨在减少资源丰富国家的政府腐败。

Over the past several years since being promulgated by the SEC, the two rules have been met with some skepticism by courts.

自 SEC 颁布以来的过去几年里，这两项规则受到了法院的一些质疑。

Nonetheless, as discussed below, distinctions exist between these disclosure rules and the pay ratio disclosure rule that may make a true comparison inapt.

尽管如此，如下所述，这些披露规则和薪酬比率披露规则之间存在区别，这可能导致真正的比较不恰当。

The conflict minerals rule was intended to address "the exploitation and trade of conflict minerals originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo .

冲突矿产规则旨在解决“源自刚果民主共和国的冲突矿产的开采和贸易”。

。

helping to finance conflict characterized by extreme levels of violence .

帮助资助以极端暴力为特征的冲突。

。

and contributing to an emergency humanitarian situation therein." 195 The rule requires companies that manufacture products that include tin, tungsten, tantalum, or gold as necessary components to conduct a reasonable "country of origin inquiry" for these minerals.

并为那里的紧急人道主义局势做出贡献。” 195 该规则要求生产含有锡、钨、钽或金作为必要成分的产品的公司对这些矿物进行合理的“原产国调查”。

196 If the minerals originated in the DRC or adjoining countries, the rule requires the further step of conducting due diligence to determine the minerals' source and chain of custody, to be disclosed on a Form SD (or specialized disclosure report).

196 如果矿物原产于刚果民主共和国或毗邻国家，则该规则要求采取进一步的步骤进行尽职调查，以确定矿物的来源和监管链，并在表格 SD（或专门披露报告）上披露。

197 While not affecting these first two parts of the rule, the D.C. Circuit has ruled that another part of the regulation—one that required companies to state whether the relevant minerals in their supply chains were "DRC conflict free," "not found to be DRC conflict free," or "DRC conflict undeterminable"—violated the First Amendment in a challenge brought in National Association of Manufacturers v.

197 华盛顿特区巡回法院在不影响该规则的前两部分的同时，裁定该法规的另一部分（要求公司声明其供应链中的相关矿物是否“不存在刚果民主共和国冲突”、“未发现不存在刚果民主共和国冲突”或“无法确定刚果民主共和国冲突”）在国家制造商协会诉美国国家制造商协会一案中提出的质疑中违反了第一修正案。

SEC ("NAM") .

美国证券交易委员会（“NAM”）。

198

As an initial matter, the NAM case presented the question of what level of First Amendment scrutiny a court should apply to compelled speech like the conflict minerals rule.

首先，NAM 案提出了一个问题：法院应该对冲突矿物规则等强迫性言论适用何种程度的第一修正案审查。

199 While courts generally apply strict scrutiny to content-based compelled speech, 200 an intermediate level of scrutiny applies to commercial speech under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Central Hudso n Gas & Electric Corp.

199 虽然法院通常对基于内容的强迫性言论进行严格审查，但根据最高法院在 Central Hudson n Gas & Electric Corp. 案中规定的测试，200 中等程度的审查适用于商业言论。

Public Service Commission .

公共服务委员会。

201 To overcome a First Amendment challenge, Central Hudson requires a "substantial" government interest that is "directly and materially advanced" by a "narrowly tailored" restriction on speech.

201 为了克服第一修正案的挑战，中央哈德逊要求通过对言论的“狭隘定制”限制来“直接和实质性地推进”政府的“实质性”利益。

202 As a further caveat, however, the Supreme Court has also ruled in Zauderer v.

202 然而，作为进一步的警告，最高法院还在 Zauderer v. 案中作出了裁决。

Office of Disciplinary Counsel that a rule regulating a lawyer's deceptive advertisement merited an even lower level of scrutiny.

纪律律师办公室认为，规范律师欺骗性广告的规则值得进行更低程度的审查。

203 The D.C. Circuit in NAM applied Central Hudson 's intermediate test to the conflict minerals rule in a 2014 decision, reasoning that the Zauderer test only applied to cases involving corrections to deceptive advertising.

203 NAM 的华盛顿特区巡回法院在 2014 年的一项裁决中将中央哈德逊中心的中间测试应用于冲突矿物规则，理由是 Zauderer 测试仅适用于涉及纠正欺骗性广告的案件。

204 But, an en banc (i.e., full court) panel of the D.C. Circuit overruled that portion of the NAM decision in 2015 in American Meat Institute v.

204 但是，华盛顿特区巡回法院的全席（即合议庭）小组在 2015 年美国肉类协会诉美国肉类协会案中推翻了 NAM 裁决的这一部分。

U.S. Department of Agriculture , holding that Zauderer scrutiny can apply in broader circumstances to disclosures required to serve other government interests.

美国农业部认为，Zauderer 审查可以在更广泛的情况下适用于服务其他政府利益所需的披露。

205

In light of American Meat Institute , the D.C. Circuit reevaluated its initial NAM decision.

根据美国肉类协会的意见，华盛顿特区巡回法院重新评估了 NAM 最初的决定。

206 In a 2015 decision, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit still held that Central Hudson scrutiny applied to the conflict minerals rule because it viewed Zauderer as still being limited to cases at least involving voluntary advertising.

206 在 2015 年的一项裁决中，华盛顿特区巡回法院的三名法官小组仍然认为中央哈德逊审查适用于冲突矿物规则，因为它认为 Zauderer 仍然仅限于至少涉及自愿广告的案件。

207 However, the court further justified its decision under Zauderer 's level of scrutiny given the "flux and uncertainty of the First Amendment doctrine of commercial speech." 208 In a Zauderer analysis, a court looks to whether the speech at issue is effective in meeting an adequate government objective and whether the compelled language is of a "purely factual and uncontroversial" nature.

207 然而，考虑到“第一修正案商业言论原则的变化和不确定性”，法院在 Zauderer 的审查级别下进一步证明了其决定的合理性。 208 在 Zauderer 的分析中，法院着眼于相关言论是否有效地实现了适当的政府目标，以及强制语言是否具有“纯粹事实和无争议”的性质。

209 The D.C. Circuit determined that neither Congress nor the SEC had attempted to determine whether or to what extent the conflict minerals disclosure would "in fact alleviate" the humanitarian crisis in the DRC.

209 华盛顿特区巡回法院认定，国会和美国证券交易委员会都没有试图确定冲突矿物披露是否或在多大程度上会“事实上缓解”刚果民主共和国的人道主义危机。

210 It also concluded that the labels required by the rule went beyond the presentation of purely factual, uncontroversial information, instead requiring issuers to use language that may imply that their products were "ethically tainted." 211

210 它还得出结论，该规则要求的标签超出了纯粹事实、无争议信息的呈现，而是要求发行人使用可能暗示其产品“道德败坏”的语言。 211

As with the conflict minerals rule, any First Amendment challenge to the pay ratio disclosure rule would likely raise as an initial matter the question of what level of scrutiny applies.

与冲突矿物规则一样，第一修正案对薪酬比例披露规则的任何挑战都可能首先引发适用何种程度的审查的问题。

The pay ratio disclosure does not directly relate to advertising, as the NAM court would require for Zauderer scrutiny, 212 suggesting that Central Hudson may apply to the pay ratio rule.

薪酬比率披露与广告没有直接关系，因为 NAM 法院会要求 Zauderer 进行审查，212 表明 Central Hudson 可能适用薪酬比率规则。

On the other hand, the American Meat Institute en banc ruling's broader view of when Zauderer scrutiny applies could suggest an application to "factual and uncontroversial" disclosures mandated by the government for purposes beyond advertising.

另一方面，美国肉类协会全席裁决对 Zauderer 审查何时适用的更广泛观点可能表明适用于政府出于广告以外目的而强制要求的“事实且无争议”的披露。

213 Moreover, prior to NAM, the D.C. Circuit recognized that the federal "government's powers to regulate the securities industry" subject the "exchange of information regarding securities" to a more "limited First Amendment scrutiny." 214 Nonetheless, the precise contours of that limitation or how it would apply to the pay ratio rule are not perfectly defined.

213 此外，在 NAM 之前，华盛顿特区巡回法院承认联邦“政府监管证券行业的权力”使“有关证券的信息交换”受到更“有限的第一修正案审查”。 214 尽管如此，该限制的精确轮廓或如何适用于薪酬比率规则尚未得到完美定义。

215

In terms of its stated goals and the nature of the disclosure required, the pay ratio rule does share certain similarities with the rule upheld in American Meat Institute .

就其既定目标和所需披露的性质而言，薪酬比率规则确实与美国肉类协会所坚持的规则有某些相似之处。

In American Meat Institute , the court upheld against a First Amendment challenge a Department of Agriculture regulation requiring meat producers to disclose "country of origin" information for their meat products.

在美国肉类协会一案中，法院支持第一修正案质疑农业部规定肉类生产商披露其肉类产品的“原产国”信息。

The court held that the relationship between the rule's means and its ends—"enabling customers to make informed choices based on characteristics of the products they wished to purchase"—was adequate under Zauderer .

法院认为，在 Zauderer 的判决下，该规则的手段和目的之间的关系——“使顾客能够根据他们希望购买的产品的特性做出明智的选择”——是充分的。

216 The purpose behind the rule at issue in American Meat Institute may be viewed by a court as similar to the SEC's stated goal of providing further information to investors, 217 in a manner that uses seemingly neutral numerical figures.

216 法院可能认为美国肉类协会所涉规则背后的目的类似于 SEC 向投资者提供进一步信息的既定目标，217 以使用看似中性数字的方式。

On the other hand, there are reasons why the rule might be viewed as similar to conflict minerals rule at issue in NAM.

另一方面，该规则可能被视为与 NAM 中存在争议的冲突矿物规则类似，也是有原因的。

For instance, with some viewing the underlying purpose of pay ratio rule to be "naming and shaming," 218 the nature of the disclosure at issue with the pay ratio rule could be viewed as being more value-laden than factual and uncontroversial like the rule at issue in American Meat Institute .

例如，有些人认为薪酬比率规则的根本目的是“点名和羞辱”218，与薪酬比率规则有关的披露性质可能被视为更具价值，而不是像美国肉类研究所所涉规则那样事实和无争议。

Since the D.C. Circuit's decision in NAM , the SEC has issued statements announcing that it is reevaluating the conflict minerals rule 219 and that it will not take enforcement action against companies that comply with the rule's country of origin inquiry requirements, but forgo the second step of conducting further due diligence if the source of the minerals is found to be the DRC or adjoining countries.

自华盛顿特区巡回法院在 NAM 案做出裁决以来，SEC 已发布声明，宣布正在重新评估冲突矿物规则 219，并且不会对符合该规则原产国调查要求的公司采取执法行动，但如果发现矿物来源是刚果民主共和国或毗邻国家，则放弃进行进一步尽职调查的第二步。

220 The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 would repeal the section of Dodd-Frank authorizing the conflict minerals rule.

220 2017 年《金融选择法案》将废除《多德弗兰克法案》中授权冲突矿物规则的部分。

221 However, the rule is not addressed by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act passed by the Senate.

221 然而，参议院通过的《经济增长、监管救济和消费者保护法案》并未涉及该规则。

222

Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank directs the SEC to promulgate a rule requiring companies to disclose payments they make to the U.S. or foreign governments relating to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.

《多德弗兰克法案》第 1504 条指示 SEC 颁布一项规则，要求公司披露其向美国或外国政府支付的与石油、天然气或矿产商业开发相关的款项。

223 The purpose of the rule was to increase transparency and combat global corruption, addressing the "mineral curse" often experienced by resource-rich nations whose governments may divert funds obtained from resource extraction and development without accountability to their citizens.

223该规则的目的是提高透明度并打击全球腐败，解决资源丰富国家经常经历的“矿产诅咒”，这些国家的政府可能转移从资源开采和开发中获得的资金，而不对其公民负责。

224 As discussed below, the rule was vacated by a court in 2013 before being legislatively repealed in early 2017.

224 如下所述，该规则于 2013 年被法院撤销，并于 2017 年初通过立法废除。

In 2013, the federal district court for the District of Columbia vacated an initial version of the resource extraction rule.

2013年，哥伦比亚特区联邦地方法院撤销了资源开采规则的初始版本。

225 The court concluded that the SEC had misinterpreted the statutory language of Dodd-Frank as requiring issuers to publicly disclose the reports of their government payments, as opposed to simply filing them with the SEC.

225 法院得出结论，美国证券交易委员会误解了《多德弗兰克法案》的法定语言，要求发行人公开披露其政府付款报告，而不是简单地向美国证券交易委员会提交报告。

226 The court further found that the SEC acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in violation of the APA in not providing for any exemptions to the disclosure rule.

226 法院进一步认定，SEC 的行为“任意且反复无常”，违反了 APA 规定，没有规定披露规则的任何豁免。

227 For example, industry participants had advocated for an exemption as to countries in which disclosing payments would be illegal under foreign law, claiming they would otherwise need to exit the market in those countries, losing billions of dollars.

227 例如，行业参与者主张对根据外国法律披露付款属于非法行为的国家予以豁免，声称否则他们将需要退出这些国家的市场，从而损失数十亿美元。

228 While the SEC believed that any exemptions would undermine the rule's purpose, the court focused on Congress's specific authorization for exemptions 229 as well as the statutory text's focus on practicability 230 in rejecting the SEC's argument.

228 虽然美国证券交易委员会认为任何豁免都会破坏该规则的目的，但法院在驳回美国证券交易委员会的论点时，重点关注了国会对豁免的具体授权229以及法定文本对实用性的关注230。

The SEC passed another version of the rule in 2016, which again required public disclosure but allowed companies to apply for exemptions on a case-by-case basis.

SEC 在 2016 年通过了该规则的另一个版本，再次要求公开披露，但允许公司根据具体情况申请豁免。

231 However, the rule was revoked by Congress under the Congressional Review Act 232 via a joint resolution of disapproval, which the President signed in February 2017.

231 然而，国会根据《国会审查法》第 232 条，通过总统于 2017 年 2 月签署的联合否决决议，撤销了该规定。

233 Unless Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank itself is repealed, however, the SEC retains the power to formulate a rule that is not "substantially the same" as the revoked version.

233 然而，除非《多德弗兰克法案》第 1504 条本身被废除，否则 SEC 保留制定与被废除版本“实质上相同”的规则的权力。

234 Nonetheless, the SEC has not identified doing so as a priority.

234 尽管如此，美国证券交易委员会并未将这样做视为优先事项。

235 The Financial CHOICE Act would repeal Section 1504 altogether, 236 but such a repeal is not included in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act passed by the Senate.

235《金融选择法案》将完全废除第 1504 条，236 但参议院通过的《经济增长、监管救济和消费者保护法案》中不包括这样的废除。

237

第237章

See Final Report of the Nat'l Comm'n on the Causes of the Fin.

请参阅国家委员会关于鱼鳍成因的最终报告。

and Econ.

和经济。

Crisis in the U.S., v (2011) [hereinafter "Final Crisis Report"] ; Jon Hilsenrath, Serena Ng & Damian Paletta, Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight , Wall St. J.

美国危机，v (2011) [以下简称“最终危机报告”]； Jon Hilsenrath、Serena Ng 和 Damian Paletta，《30 年代以来最严重的危机，尚未结束》，《华尔街日报》

(Sept.

（九月。

18, 2008), https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122169431617549947 .

2008 年 18 月），https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122169431617549947。

See, e.g. , Christopher L.

参见，例如，克里斯托弗·L.

Foote, Kristopher S.

福特，克里斯托弗·S.

Gerardi & Paul S.

杰拉迪和保罗·S.

Willen, Why Did So Many People Make So Many Ex Post Bad Decisions?: The C auses of the Foreclosure Crisis , in Rethinking the Financial Crisis 136, 136-40 (Alan S.

Willen，《为什么这么多人做出这么多事后错误决定？：止赎危机的原因》，《重新思考金融危机》136, 136-40 (Alan S.

Blinder, Andrew W.

布林德，安德鲁·W.

Lo & Robert M.

罗&罗伯特·M.

Solow, eds.

索洛，编辑。

2012).

2012）。

Ben S.

本·S。

Bernanke, The Courage to Act : A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath 270 (2015) .

伯南克，《行动的勇气：危机及其后果回忆录》270 (2015)。

See Gregg Wirth, Ponzi Schemes, the SEC, and the Myth of Investor Protection: A Q&A with Former SEC IG Kotz , 18 No. 12 Wallstreetlawyer.com: Sec.

请参阅 Gregg Wirth，《庞氏骗局、SEC 和投资者保护的神话：与前 SEC IG Kotz 的问答》，18 No. 12 Wallstreetlawyer.com：Sec。

Elec.

电气。

Age 1, 1 (Dec.

1、1 岁（12 月）

2014); Felicia Smith, Madoff Ponzi Scheme Exposes the "Myth of the Sophisticated Investor," 40 U.

2014）； Felicia Smith，麦道夫庞氏骗局揭露“老练投资者的神话”，40 U.

Balt.

巴尔特。

L。

Rev.

牧师。

215, 226, 236-39 (2010).

215、226、236-39（2010）。

Jonathan Weisman, U.S. Declares Bank and Auto Bailouts Over, and Profitable , N.Y.

乔纳森·韦斯曼（Jonathan Weisman），美国宣布银行和汽车救助结束，并实现盈利，纽约

Times (Dec.

时报（十二月

19, 2014), https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/business/us-signals-end-of-bailouts-of-automakers-and-wall-street.html ; U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, TARP Tracker , https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Pages/TARP-Tracker.aspx (last accessed 4/12/18).

2014 年 12 月 19 日），https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/business/us-signals-end-of-bailouts-of-automakers-and-wall-street.html；美国财政部，TARP Tracker，https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Pages/TARP-Tracker.aspx（最后访问时间：2018 年 4 月 12 日）。

Murat Tasci & Caitlin Treanor, Labor Market Behavior during and after the Great Recession: Has It Been Unusual?

Murat Tasci 和 Caitlin Treanor，大衰退期间和之后的劳动力市场行为：是否异常？

, Fed.

，美联储。

Res.

资源。

Bank of Cleveland (Oct.

克利夫兰银行（10 月）

13, 2015), https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-trends/2015-economic-trends/et-20151013-labor-market-during-after-great-recession.aspx .

2015 年 13 月），https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-trends/2015-economic-trends/et-20151013-labor-market-during-after-great-recession.aspx。

William R.

威廉·R。

Emmons & Bryan J.

埃蒙斯和布莱恩·J.

Noeth, Household Financial Stability: Who Suffered the Most from the Crisis?

诺思，《家庭金融稳定：谁在危机中受害最深？

, Fed.

，美联储。

Res.

资源。

Bank of St. Louis (July 2012), https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/july-2012/household-financial-stability--who-suffered-the-most-from-the-crisis#endnotes .

圣路易斯银行（2012 年 7 月），https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/july-2012/household-financial-stability--who-suffered-the-most-from-the-crisis#endnotes。

See, e.g., Robert E.

参见，例如，Robert E.

Litan, The Political Economy of Financial Regulation after the Crisis , in Rethinking the Financial Crisis 269, 270 ("There are so many alleged 'causes' of the great financial crisis of 2007 to 2008 that it is easy to lose count."); Final Crisis Report, supra note 1 at 125-26, 187, 230, 255; Dissenting Statement of Keith Hennessy, Douglas Holtz-Eakin & Bill Thomas , in Final Crisis Report, supra note 1, at 413-37; Dissenting Statement of Peter Wallison , in Final Crisis Report, supra note 1, at 443-553.

Litan，《危机后金融监管的政治经济学》，《重新思考金融危机》269、270（“2007 年至 2008 年金融危机的所谓‘原因’有太多，很容易数不清。”）；最终危机报告，前注 1，第 125-26、187、230、255； Keith Hennessy、Douglas Holtz-Eakin 和 Bill Thomas 在最终危机报告中的反对声明，前注 1，第 413-37 页； Peter Wallison 的反对声明，《最终危机报告》，前注 1，第 443-553 页。

See, e.g., Andrew Dunning, The Changing Landscape of Executive Compensation After Dodd-Frank , 30 Rev.

例如，参见 Andrew Dunning，《多德弗兰克法案后高管薪酬的变化格局》，第 30 版。

Banking & Fin.

银行与金融。

L。

64, 64-66 (2010) (discussing pre-Dodd-Frank executive compensation packages' focus on achieving short-term financial goals and disconnect between executive performance and corporate value); Michael diFilipo, Note, Regulating Executive Compensation in the Wake of the Financial Crisis , 2 Drexel L.

64, 64-66 (2010)（讨论多德弗兰克法案之前的高管薪酬方案侧重于实现短期财务目标以及高管绩效与公司价值之间的脱节）； Michael diFilipo，注，金融危机后监管高管薪酬，2 Drexel L.

Rev.

牧师。

258, 280-86 (2009) (discussing the manner in which executive pay practices may have encouraged decisions that led to the financial crisis).

258, 280-86 (2009)（讨论高管薪酬实践可能鼓励导致金融危机的决策的方式）。

For a high-level overview of Dodd-Frank, see CRS Report R41350, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Background and Summary , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

有关《多德弗兰克法案》的高级概述，请参阅 CRS 报告 R41350，《多德弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法案：背景和摘要》，由 [作者姓名已删除] 协调。

Final Rule: Pay Ratio Disclosure, Release Nos.

最终规则：薪酬比例披露，发布编号

33-9877; 34-75610, 80 Fed.

33-9877； 34-75610，80 美联储。

Reg.

50,104 (Aug.

50,104（8 月）

18, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2015/33-9877.pdf (specifying that "registrants must comply with the final rule for the first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2017).

2015 年 18 日），https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2015/33-9877.pdf（指定“注册者必须遵守 2017 年 1 月 1 日或之后开始的第一个财政年度的最终规则）。

For purposes of Section 922, "original information" is defined to mean information that (1) is derived from the independent knowledge or analysis of a whistleblower, (2) is not known to the SEC from any other source, unless the whistleblower is the original source of the information, and (3) is not exclusively derived from an allegation made in a judicial or administrative hearing, in a governmental report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the whistleblower is the source of the information.

就第 922 条而言，“原始信息”的定义是指 (1) 来自举报人的独立知识或分析的信息，(2) SEC 不从任何其他来源获悉的信息，除非举报人是信息的原始来源，以及 (3) 并非完全源自司法或行政听证会、政府报告、听证会、审计或调查或新闻媒体中提出的指控，除非举报人是信息的来源。

15 U.S.C.

15 美国法典

§ 78u-6(a)(3).

§ 78u-6(a)(3)。

Id.

ID。

§ 78u-6(g); SEC, Whistleblower Program: 2017 Annual Report to Congress 29 (Nov.

§ 78u-6(g)； SEC，举报计划：向国会提交的 2017 年年度报告 29（11 月 29 日）

15, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-2017-annual-report-whistleblower-program.pdf [hereinafter "Whistleblower Program Report"] ("No money has been taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay whistleblower awards.").

2017 年 12 月 15 日），https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-2017-annual-report-whistleblower-program.pdf [以下简称“举报人计划报告”]（“没有从受损害的投资者那里收取或扣留资金来支付举报人奖励。”）。

See Jenny Strasburg and David Michaels, Whistleblowers Helped SEC Bring $415 Million Settlement with Bank of America, Wall St. J.

请参阅珍妮·斯特拉斯堡 (Jenny Strasburg) 和大卫·迈克尔斯 (David Michaels)，举报人帮助 SEC 与华尔街美国银行达成 4.15 亿美元和解。

(Mar.

（三月。

19, 2018), https://www.wsj.com/articles/whistleblowers-helped-sec-bring-415-million-settlement-against-bank-of-america-1521479445 ; Press Release, SEC, SEC Announces Its Largest-Ever Whistleblower Awards (Mar.

2018 年 12 月 19 日），https://www.wsj.com/articles/whistleblowers-helped-sec-bring-415-million-settlement-against-bank-of-america-1521479445；新闻稿，美国证券交易委员会 (SEC)，美国证券交易委员会 (SEC) 宣布其有史以来规模最大的举报人奖（3 月 12 日）

19, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-44 ; Press Release, SEC, Merrill Lynch to Pay $415 Million For Misusing Customer Cash and Putting Customer Securities at Risk (June 23, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-128.html .

2018 年 12 月 19 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-44；新闻稿，SEC，美林因滥用客户现金并使客户证券面临风险而支付 4.15 亿美元（2016 年 6 月 23 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-128.html。

See John C.

参见约翰 C.

Coffee, Jr., Hobson's CHOICE: The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 and the Future of SEC Administrative Enforcement , (June 22, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/investor-advisory-committee-2012/coffee-hobsons-choice-act.htm ("[S]uch persons will be disqualified from receiving any bounty, and this could chill the incentive to later blow the whistle.

Coffee, Jr.，Hobson 的选择：2017 年金融选择法案和 SEC 行政执法的未来，（2017 年 6 月 22 日），https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/investor-advisory-committee-2012/coffee-hobsons-choice-act.htm（“此类人员将被取消接受任何赏金的资格，这可能会降低以后举报的动机。

Subordinates should not be seen as complicit wrongdoers simply because they do not behave as heroes.").

下属不应该仅仅因为他们没有表现出英雄的行为而被视为同谋。”）。

See Thomas Zaccaro, Nicolas Morgan, & Kyle Jones, Congress Faces 'CHOICE' On Future Of SEC Enforcement , Law360 (Sept.

请参阅 Thomas Zaccaro、Nicolas Morgan 和 Kyle Jones，国会面临 SEC 执法未来的“选择”，Law360（9 月）

27, 2017), https://www.law360.com/articles/967996/congress-faces-choice-on-future-of-sec-enforcement ("Although this provision disqualifies individuals "convicted of a criminal violation" related to the conduct at issue, it still allows individuals who caused or allowed this conduct to occur to profit from these violations.

2017 年 2 月 27 日），https://www.law360.com/articles/967996/congress-faces-choice-on-future-of-sec-enforcement（“虽然该条款取消了与相关行为相关的“被定罪刑事违法行为”的个人的资格，但它仍然允许导致或允许这种行为发生的个人从这些违法行为中获利。

Section 828 would fix this problem .

第 828 条将解决这个问题。

。

.").

.”）。

17 C.F.R.

§ 240.21F-17(a).

§ 240.21F-17(a)。

The relevant rule prohibits any person from "tak[ing] any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation." Id.

相关规则禁止任何人“采取任何行动阻止个人就可能违反证券法的情况与委员会工作人员直接沟通”。 ID。

Jeffrey Golan and Chad Carder, 15 Years of SOX: The WorldCom and Enron Securities Cases , Law360 (July 31, 2017), https://www.law360.com/articles/947479/15-years-of-sox-the-worldcom-and-enron-securities-cases .

Jeffrey Golan 和 Chad Carder，SOX 15 年：世通和安然证券案件，Law360（2017 年 7 月 31 日），https://www.law360.com/articles/947479/15-years-of-sox-the-worldcom-and-enron-securities-cases。

Michael W.

迈克尔·W.

Peregrine, Corporate Compliance and the Legacy of Sarbanes Oxley , NYU Law Compliance & Enf't Blog (Aug.

Peregrine，《公司合规性和萨班斯·奥克斯利法案》的遗产，纽约大学法律合规性和 Enf't 博客（2018 年 8 月）

3, 2017), https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2017/08/03/corporate-compliance-and-the-legacy-of-sarbanes-oxley/ .

2017 年 3 月），https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2017/08/03/corporate-compliance-and-the-legacy-of-sarbanes-oxley/。

Id.

ID。

§ 78u-6(h)(1) (protecting whistleblowers who "mak[e] disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C.

§ 78u-6(h)(1)（保护“根据 2002 年萨班斯-奥克斯利法案 (15 U.S.C.

7201 et seq.), this chapter, including section 78j-1(m) of this title, section 1513(e) of title 19, and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission").

7201 等），本章，包括本标题第 78j-1(m) 节、第 19 章第 1513(e) 节，以及受委员会管辖的任何其他法律、规则或法规”）。

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and Digital Realty Trust, L.P., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Mar.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. 和 Digital Realty Trust, L.P.，年度报告（表格 10-K）（2017 年 3 月）

1, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1297996/000129799618000026/dlr12311710k.htm .

2018 年 1 月 1 日），https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1297996/000129799618000026/dlr12311710k.htm 。

For purposes of brevity, references to a particular circuit in the body of this report (e.g., the Ninth Circuit) refer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for that particular circuit.

为简洁起见，本报告正文中提及的特定巡回法院（例如第九巡回法院）是指该特定巡回法院的美国上诉法院。

See 17 C.F.R.

参见 17 C.F.R.

§ 240.21f-2; SEC, Interpretation of the SEC's Whistleblower Rules Under Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 80 Fed.

§ 240.21f-2； SEC，对 1934 年《证券交易法》第 21F 条规定的 SEC 举报规则的解释，80 Fed。

Reg.

47,829, 47,830 (Aug.

47,829, 47,830（8 月）

10, 2015).

2015 年 10 月）。

See Chevron, U.S.A.

参见美国雪佛龙

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984) (holding that courts should defer to an agency's "construction of the statute which it administers" as long as the statute is ambiguous and the agency regulations are "based on a permissible construction of the statute").

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984)（认为只要法规不明确且机构法规“基于允许的法规解释”，法院就应尊重机构“对其管理的法规的解释”）。

For more on the Chevron doctrine, see CRS Report R44954, Chevron Deference: A Primer , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].

有关 Chevron 原则的更多信息，请参阅 CRS 报告 R44954，Chevron Deference：A Primer，作者：[作者姓名已删除] 和 [作者姓名已删除]。

Dig.

挖。

Realty Tr., Inc. v.

Realty Tr., Inc. 诉。

Somers, 138 S.

萨默斯，138 S.

Ct.

CT。

767, 776-77 (2018) (quoting Burgess v.

767, 776-77 (2018)（引用 Burgess v.

United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008)).

美国，553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008))。

Id.

ID。

at 778.

778。

Specifically, the Court distinguished two prior Supreme Court decisions that had been raised by Somers.

具体而言，法院区分了萨默斯先前提出的两项最高法院判决。

In the first case, Lawson v.

在第一个案件中，劳森诉。

Suwannee Fruit & Steamship Company , the Court found that applying the statutory definition of the term "disability" to the worker compensation provision at issue in Lawson would have caused "obvious incongruities in the language" of the statute and "destroy[ed] one of the major purposes" of the provision.

Suwannee Fruit & Steamship Company 案中，法院认为，将“残疾”一词的法定定义应用于劳森案中争议的工人赔偿条款，会导致该法规“语言明显不一致”，并“破坏该条款的主要目的之一”。

336 U.S. 198, 201-02 (1949).

336 美国 198, 201-02 (1949)。

However, in Digital Realty , the Court rejected Somers's argument that a reading of the anti-retaliation provision to exclude internal reporting was at odds with congressional intent or the overall statutory scheme.

然而，在 Digital Realty 案中，法院驳回了萨默斯的论点，即对反报复条款的解读排除内部报告与国会意图或整体法定计划不一致。

Digital Realty , 138 S.

数字地产，138 S。

Ct.

CT。

at 778.

778。

Second, in contrast to Utility Air Regulatory Group v.

其次，与公用事业空气监管集团诉。

EPA , where the Court held that the term "air pollutant" had a narrower meaning in one portion of the Clean Water Act than its statute-wide definition (because that the term was routinely interpreted with a "narrower, context-appropriate meaning" throughout individual portions of the statute, including by the EPA), 134 S.

EPA ，法院认为“空气污染物”一词在《清洁水法》的一部分中的含义比其在法规范围内的定义要窄（因为该术语在整个法规的各个部分（包括 EPA）中通常被解释为“较窄的、适合上下文的含义”），134 S.

Ct.

CT。

2427, 2439 (2014), in Digital Realty the definition of "whistleblower" was located within Section 922 of Dodd-Frank itself and stated that it was applicable to the entire section.

2427, 2439 (2014)，在 Digital Realty 中，“举报人”的定义位于多德弗兰克法案本身的第 922 条中，并声明它适用于整个章节。

Dig.

挖。

Realty , 138 S.

房地产，138 S。

Ct.

CT。

at 778 (citing 15 U.S.C.

778（引用 15 U.S.C.

§ 78u-6(a)(6)).

§ 78u-6(a)(6))。

See, e.g., Dig.

参见，例如，挖掘。

Realty , 138 S.

房地产，138 S。

Ct.

CT。

777, 780 (quoting S.

777、780（引用 S.

Rep.

代表。

No. 111-176, at 37 (2010)).

第 111-176 号，第 37 页（2010 年）。

The citation to the Senate Report prompted significant debate amongst the concurring justices in Digital Realty.

对参议院报告的引用引发了 Digital Realty 同意的法官之间的激烈辩论。

Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, wrote separately regarding their disagreement with the Court opinion's reliance on the Senate Report in interpreting the definition of whistleblower.

托马斯大法官与阿利托大法官和戈萨奇大法官一起，分别撰文表达了他们对法院意见依赖参议院报告来解释举报人定义的不同意见。

Id.

ID。

at 783 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).

第 783 页（Thomas, J.，部分同意并同意判决）。

They "join[ed] the Court's opinion only to the extent it relies on the text of Dodd-Frank," elaborating that the language of a statute enacted by Congress—rather than potentially unreliable documents explaining congressional intent—should ultimately control.

他们“仅在依赖于《多德弗兰克法案》文本的情况下才加入法院的意见”，阐明国会颁布的法规的语言（而不是解释国会意图的可能不可靠的文件）应该最终起主导作用。

Id.

ID。

Justice Sotomayor, on the other hand, authored another concurring opinion, joined by Justice Breyer, in which she argued that it is appropriate to look to legislative history as an interpretive aid, "even when, as here, a statute's meaning can clearly be discerned from its text." Id.

另一方面，索托马约尔法官撰写了另一份一致意见，布雷耶法官也加入其中，她认为将立法历史视为解释性援助是适当的，“即使像这里一样，可以从其文本中清楚地辨别出法规的含义。” ID。

(Sotomayor, J., concurring).

（索托马约尔，J.，同意）。

In such cases, Justice Sotomayor contended, inquiries into legislative intent can confirm and enhance the Court's understanding of the language.

索托马约尔法官认为，在这种情况下，对立法意图的调查可以确认并加强法院对语言的理解。

Id.

ID。

See Whistleblower Program Report, supra note 33, at 17 (noting that 83% of whistleblower award recipients reporting to the SEC in 2017 who were employees or former employees of the subject entities first reported their complaints internally); see also Ethics Res.

请参阅《举报人计划报告》，前注 33，第 17 页（注意到 2017 年向 SEC 报告的举报人奖励获得者中有 83% 是相关实体的雇员或前雇员，他们首先在内部报告了他们的投诉）；另请参阅道德研究。

Ctr., Inside the Mind of a Whistleblower: A Supplemental Report of the 2011 National Business Ethics Survey 2 (2012), http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/inside-the-mind-of-a-whistleblower-NBES.pdf (estimating that only one in six whistleblowers "ever chooses to report externally.").

Ctr.，《举报人的内心深处：2011 年全国商业道德调查 2 的补充报告》(2012)，http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/inside-the-mind-of-a-whistleblower-NBES.pdf（估计只有六分之一的举报人“曾经选择对外报告”）。

See Dunstan Prial, Incentives Get Weaker For Internal Whistleblower Reporting , Law360 (March 23, 2018), https://www.law360.com/articles/1025665/incentives-get-weaker-for-internal-whistleblower-reporting .

请参阅 Dunstan Prial，《内部举报者报告的激励措施减弱》，Law360（2018 年 3 月 23 日），https://www.law360.com/articles/1025665/incentives-get-weaker-for-internal-whistleblower-reporting。

See Stephen Kohn, Digital Realty Trust v.

参见 Stephen Kohn，Digital Realty Trust 诉。

Somers May Kill Corporate Compliance, Law360 (Sept.

萨默斯可能会扼杀企业合规性，Law360（9 月）

21, 2017), https://www.law360.com/articles/964208/digital-realty-trust-v-somers-may-kill-corporate-compliance .

2017 年 2 月 21 日），https://www.law360.com/articles/964208/digital-realty-trust-v-somers-may-kill-corporate-compliance 。

Brief for United States Chamber of Commerce as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 9-11, Digital Realty, Inc. v.

作为法庭之友支持申请人在 9-11 事件中向美国商会提供的简报，Digital Realty, Inc. 诉。

Somers, 138 S.

萨默斯，138 S.

Ct.

CT。

767 (2018) (No. 16-1276).

767（2018）（第 16-1276 号）。

Dustin Prial, Companies May Find High Court Whistleblower Ruling Costly , Law360 (Feb.

达斯汀·普里亚尔 (Dustin Prial)，《公司可能会发现高等法院举报人的裁决成本高昂》，Law360（2 月 12 日）

21, 2018), https://www.law360.com/securities/articles/1014744/companies-may-find-high-court-whistleblower-ruling-costly .

2018 年 2 月 21 日），https://www.law360.com/securities/articles/1014744/companies-may-find-high-court-whistleblower-ruling-costly 。

Section 953(b) specifies that companies must disclose the pay ratio in SEC filings required under 17 C.F.R.

第 953(b) 条规定，公司必须根据 17 C.F.R. 的要求在 SEC 备案中披露薪酬比率。

§ 229.10(a), which include registration statements and annual and quarterly financial reports, among others.

§ 229.10(a)，其中包括注册报表以及年度和季度财务报告等。

For ease of reference, this report may refer to companies subject to these rules as "reporting companies" or "registrants" (the term employed by the SEC in the final pay ratio disclosure rule, 17 C.F.R.

为了便于参考，本报告可能将受这些规则约束的公司称为“报告公司”或“注册人”（美国证券交易委员会在最终薪酬比率披露规则 17 C.F.R. 中使用的术语）。

§ 229.402(u)).

§ 229.402(u))。

See Dodd-Frank § 953(b) ("The Commission shall amend section 229.402 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, to require each issuer to disclose in any filing of the issuer described in section 229.10(a) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto)—(A) the median of the annual total compensation of all employees of the issuer, except the chief executive officer (or any equivalent position) of the issuer; (B) the annual total compensation of the chief executive officer (or any equivalent position) of the issuer; and (C) the ratio of the amount described in subparagraph (A) to the amount described in subparagraph (B).").

参见《多德-弗兰克法案》第 953(b) 条（“委员会应修订《联邦法规》第 17 章第 229.402 节，要求各发行人在《联邦法规》第 17 章第 229.10(a) 节（或其任何后续版本）中描述的发行人的任何文件中披露——(A) 发行人除首席执行官（或任何同等人员）之外的所有员工的年度总薪酬中位数(B) 发行人首席执行官（或任何同等职位）的年度总薪酬；以及 (C) (A) 项所述金额与 (B) 项所述金额的比率。”)

17 C.F.R.

§ 229.402(u).

§ 229.402(u)。

The rule was an addition to Item 402 of the SEC's Regulation S-K.

该规则是对 SEC S-K 条例第 402 条的补充。

Dennis R.

丹尼斯·R。

Honabach and Mark A.

霍纳巴赫和马克 A.

Sargent, The F inal "Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule," Proxy Rules Hdbk.

萨金特，最终的“薪酬比率披露规则”，代理规则 Hdbk。

§ 4:25, (2017).

§ 4:25，（2017）。

Final Rule: Pay Ratio Disclosure, Release Nos.

最终规则：薪酬比例披露，发布编号

33-9877; 34-75610, 80 Fed.

33-9877； 34-75610，80 美联储。

Reg.

50,104, 50,108 (Aug.

50,104, 50,108（8 月）

18, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2015/33-9877.pdf [hereinafter "Adopting Release"].

2015 年 18 日），https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2015/33-9877.pdf [以下简称“采用发布”]。

Proposed Rule: Pay Ratio Disclosure, Release Nos.

拟议规则：薪酬比率披露，发布编号

33-9452; 34-70443, Fed.

33-9452； 34-70443，美联储。

Sec.

秒。

L。

Rep.

代表。

P。

80356 (Sept.

80356（九月

18, 2013), https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/33-9452.pdf .

2013 年 18 日），https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2013/33-9452.pdf。

Honeywell International Inc., Preliminary Proxy Statement (Schedule 14A) (Feb.

Honeywell International Inc.，初步委托书（附表 14A）（2 月 14 日）

16, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773840/000093041318000526/c89618_pre14a.htm .

2018 年 12 月 16 日），https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773840/000093041318000526/c89618_pre14a.htm 。

S ee, e.g. , Jena McGregor, As C ompanies R eveal G igantic CEO-to- W orker P ay R atios, S ome W orry H ow L ow- P aid W orkers M ight T ake the N ews , Wash.

参见，例如，杰娜·麦格雷戈，《公司披露首席执行官与员工的薪酬比例巨大，一些人担心低薪员工可能会接受新闻》，华盛顿州。

Post (Feb.

帖子（二月

21, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2018/02/21/as-companies-reveal-gigantic-ceo-to-worker-pay-ratios-some-worry-how-low-paid-workers-might-take-the-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.83eb25a5d659 .

2018 年 21 日）， https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2018/02/21/as-companies-reveal-gigantic-ceo-to-worker-pay-ratios-some-worry-how-low-paid-workers-might-take-the-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.83eb25a5d659 。

Compare, e.g., Aptiv PLC, Definitive Proxy Statement (Schedule 14A) (Mar.

比较例如 Aptiv PLC，最终委托书（附表 14A）（2019 年 3 月）

12, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1521332/000119312518079291/d527278ddef14a.htm (disclosing a pay ratio of 2,526:1), with Dorchester Minerals, L.P., Preliminary Proxy Statement (Schedule 14A) (Feb.

2018 年 12 月 12 日），https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1521332/000119312518079291/d527278ddef14a.htm（披露薪酬比例为 2,526:1），与 Dorchester Minerals, L.P.，初步委托书（附表） 14A）（二月

26, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1172358/000143774918003337/dmlp20180223_pre14a.htm (disclosing a pay ratio of 0.9:1).

2018 年 2 月 26 日），https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1172358/000143774918003337/dmlp20180223_pre14a.htm（披露薪酬比例为 0.9:1）。

Id.

ID。

§ 951.

第951章

The SEC adopted rules implementing the "say-on-pay" provision in 2011.

美国证券交易委员会 (SEC) 于 2011 年通过了实施“薪酬发言权”条款的规则。

See 17 C.F.R.

参见 17 C.F.R.

§ 240.14a-21(a).

§ 240.14a-21(a)。

Title IX of Dodd-Frank further contains provisions requiring enhanced compensation structure reporting (Dodd-Frank § 956), that directors serving on a board's compensation committee be independent (Dodd-Frank § 952), and the clawback of executive incentive compensation that result from the firm's issuing erroneous financial statements that later need to be restated in compliance with accounting standards (Dodd-Frank § 954).

《多德-弗兰克法案》第九章还包含要求加强薪酬结构报告的条款（《多德弗兰克法案》第 956 条）、要求在董事会薪酬委员会任职的董事必须独立（《多德弗兰克法案》第 952 条），以及对因公司发布错误的财务报表而导致的高管激励薪酬进行追回（随后需要根据会计准则进行重述）（《多德弗兰克法案》第 954 条）。

The SEC proposed a rule implementing the "pay versus performance" provision in April 2015, followed by a notice and comment period.

2015 年 4 月，SEC 提出了一项实施“薪酬与绩效”条款的规则，随后进入了通知和评论期。

See Press Release, SEC, SEC Proposes Rules to Require Companies to Disclose the Relationship Between Executive Pay and a Company's Financial Performance (Apr.

请参阅新闻稿，美国证券交易委员会 (SEC)，美国证券交易委员会 (SEC) 提出规则，要求公司披露高管薪酬与公司财务业绩之间的关系（4 月 12 日）

29, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-78.html .

2015 年 2 月 29 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-78.html。

However, no further action has been taken, and the rule was placed on the SEC's "long term" agenda in its Regulatory Flexibility Agenda released in January 2018.

然而，尚未采取进一步行动，该规则已在 SEC 2018 年 1 月发布的监管灵活性议程中列入“长期”议程。

See Regulatory Flexibility Agenda, 83 Fed.

参见监管灵活性议程，83 Fed。

Reg.

2022 (Jan.

2022年（一月

12, 2018).

2018 年 12 月）。

Senate Report, supra note 22, at 36 ("Serious and far-reaching problems were caused by .

参议院报告，前注 22，第 36 页（“严重且影响深远的问题是由 .

。

excessive compensation incentives that promoted excessive risk taking.

过度的薪酬激励促进了过度的风险承担。

。

.").

.”）。

For more on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation, see CRS Report R45153, Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends , by [author name scrubbed], at 35-40.

有关在法定解释中使用立法历史的更多信息，请参阅 CRS 报告 R45153，法定解释：理论、工具和趋势，作者：[作者姓名已删除]，第 35-40 页。

See, e.g. , Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P.

参见，例如, Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P.

County of San Diego, 311 F.

圣地亚哥县，311 F.

Supp.

补充。

2d 898, 907-08 (S.D.

Cal.

卡尔。

2004) (finding legislative history of surrounding provisions of statute, as well as of section more generally, persuasive in interpreting statutory provision); cf.

2004）（寻找法规相关条款以及更一般的章节的立法历史，在解释法规条款时具有说服力）；参见

EEOC v.

平等就业机会委员会诉。

Commercial Office Prods.

商业办公产品。

Co., 486 U.S. 107, 116, 121 (1988) (noting that an interpretation of one provision in a statute can be supported by the legislative history of other, related sections of the same statute); see also Danskin, Inc. v.

Co.，486 U.S. 107, 116, 121 (1988)（指出对法规中一项条款的解释可以得到同一法规其他相关章节的立法历史的支持）；另见 Danskin, Inc. 诉。

Comm'r, 331 F.2d 360, 361 (2d Cir.

Comm'r，331 F.2d 360、361（2d Cir.

1964) (looking to "language and legislative history of a related section" of the tax code to assist in determining classification of expenditures at issue).

1964）（参考税法的“相关章节的语言和立法历史”，以协助确定相关支出的分类）。

Mary Jo White, Statement at Open Meeting on Security-based Swap Rules Under Title VII and on Pay Ratio Disclosure Rule , SEC (Aug.

Mary Jo White，在关于第七章下基于证券的互换规则和薪酬比率披露规则的公开会议上的声明，SEC（2018 年 8 月）

5, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/statement-at-open-meeting-on-sbs-and-pay-ratio-disclosure.html .

2015 年 5 月 5 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/statement-at-open-meeting-on-sbs-and-pay-ratio-disclosure.html。

Luis A.

路易斯·A.

Aguilar, The CEO Pay Ratio Rule: A Workable Solution for Both Issuers and Investors , SEC (Aug.

Aguilar，《首席执行官薪酬比率规则：发行人和投资者的可行解决方案》，SEC（2018 年 8 月）

5, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/statement-on-open-meeting-on-pay-ratio-aguilar.html .

2015 年 5 月 5 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/statement-on-open-meeting-on-pay-ratio-aguilar.html 。

See Michael S.

参见迈克尔·S.

Piwowar, Dissenting Statement at Open Meeting on Pay Ratio Disclosure , SEC (Aug.

Piwowar，在薪酬比率披露公开会议上的反对声明，SEC（8 月 12 日）

5, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/dissenting-statement-at-open-meeting-on-pay-ratio-disclosure.html [hereinafter "Piwowar Dissenting Statement"].

2015 年 5 月 5 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/dissenting-statement-at-open-meeting-on-pay-ratio-disclosure.html [以下简称“Piwowar 异议声明”]。

This comment was generally echoed by various public commenters.

这一评论得到了各种公众评论者的普遍响应。

Adopting Release, supra note 105, at 23 (discussing the comments filed by various commenters).

采用发布，前注 105，第 23 页（讨论各个评论者提出的评论）。

See Daniel M.

参见丹尼尔·M.

Gallagher, Dissenting Statement at an Open Meeting to Adopt the "Pay Ratio" Rule, SEC (Aug.

加拉格尔，在采用“薪酬比率”规则的公开会议上的反对声明，SEC（8 月 21 日）

5, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/dissenting-statement-at-open-meeting-to-adopt-the-pay-ratio-rule.html [hereinafter "Gallagher Dissenting Statement"].

2015 年 5 月 5 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/dissenting-statement-at-open-meeting-to-adopt-the-pay-ratio-rule.html [以下简称“加拉格尔反对声明”]。

Dodd-Frank § 953(b); 17 C.F.R.

多德-弗兰克法案第 953(b) 条； 17 C.F.R.

§ 229.10(a).

§ 229.10(a)。

According to the SEC's Adopting Release, "in addition to potential liability under Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.

根据 SEC 的采纳声明，“除了《证券交易法》第 18 条规定的潜在责任外，《美国法典》第 15 条规定的潜在责任也包括在内。

§ 78r, "registrants that fail to comply with the final rule could .

§ 78r，“不遵守最终规则的注册人可以 .

。

be violating Exchange Act Sections 13(a) and 15(d), as applicable, and would also be subject to potential liability under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, for any false or misleading material statements in the information disclosed pursuant to the rule." Adopting Release, supra note 105, at 146-47; 15 U.S.C.

违反《证券交易法》第 13(a) 和 15(d) 条（如适用），并且根据《证券交易法》第 10(b) 条和据此颁布的规则 10b-5，根据该规则披露的信息中存在任何虚假或误导性的重大陈述，也将承担潜在的责任。”采用发布，前注 105，第 146-47 页； 15 美国法典

§§ 78m, 78o, 78j; 17 C.F.R.

§§ 78m、78o、78j； 17 C.F.R.

§ 240.10b-5.

§ 240.10b-5。

17 C.F.R.

§ 229.402.

§ 229.402。

Reporting companies had not previously been required to disclose median employee pay.

此前，报告公司并未被要求披露员工薪酬中位数。

Dodd-Frank § 953(b) ("[T]he total compensation of an employee of an issuer shall be determined in accordance with section 229.402(c)(2)(x) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations."); 17 C.F.R.

Dodd-Frank § 953(b)（“发行人雇员的总薪酬应根据《联邦法规》第 17 篇第 229.402(c)(2)(x) 节确定。”）； 17 C.F.R.

§ 229.402(u)(2)(i).

§ 229.402(u)(2)(i)。

Item 402(c)(2)(x) includes the following components of an executive's compensation, to be disclosed in a summary table: salary, bonus, stock awards, option awards, non-equity incentive plan compensation, change in pension value and non-qualified deferred compensation earnings, and all other compensation.

第 402(c)(2)(x) 项包括高管薪酬的以下组成部分，并在汇总表中披露：工资、奖金、股票奖励、期权奖励、非股权激励计划薪酬、养老金价值变化和不合格递延薪酬收入以及所有其他薪酬。

A company with less than 5% non-U.S. employees that excludes any non-U.S. employees from their calculation must exclude all foreign employees.

非美国员工比例低于 5% 的公司如果将任何非美国员工排除在计算之外，则必须排除所有外国员工。

Id.

ID。

§ 229.402(u)(4)(ii).

§ 229.402(u)(4)(ii)。

See Gallagher Dissenting Statement, supra note 125.

参见加拉格尔反对声明，前注 125。

Moreover, for example, the National Retail Federation has argued that including part-time workers distorts the ratio in their industry, given that "about 30% of retail workers are classified as part-time." National Retail Federation, SEC Pay Ratio Rule , https://nrf.com/advocacy/policy-agenda/sec-pay-ratio-rule .

此外，例如，全国零售联合会认为，考虑到“大约 30% 的零售工人被归类为兼职工人”，将兼职工人纳入其中会扭曲其行业的比例。全国零售联合会，SEC 薪酬比率规则，https://nrf.com/advocacy/policy-agenda/sec-pay-ratio-rule。

SEC, Interpretation: Comm'n Guidance on Pay Ratio Disclosure, Release Nos.

SEC，解释：关于薪酬比率披露的 Comm'n 指南，版本号。

33-10415, 34-81673, 3 (Sept.

33-10415、34-81673、3（9 月）

21, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2017/33-10415.pdf [hereinafter "Comm'n Guidance"].

2017 年 2 月 21 日），https://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2017/33-10415.pdf [以下简称“Comm'n 指南”]。

See, e.g. , IRS, Publication 15-A Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide (2018), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15a.pdf .

参见，例如，IRS，出版物 15-A 雇主补充税收指南（2018 年），https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15a.pdf 。

Securities Regulation – Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – SEC Finalizes Regulations Requiring Companies to Disclose Pay Ratio Between the CEO and Median Employee , 129 Harv.

证券监管 – 多德弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法案 – SEC 最终确定要求公司披露首席执行官与中位员工之间薪酬比率的法规，129 Harv。

L。

Rev.

牧师。

1144, 1147 (Feb.

1144、1147（2 月）

2016) [hereinafter "Harv.

2016）[以下简称“Harv。

L。

Rev."].

牧师”]。

Some argue, however, that this flexibility does appear to leave such companies a way to potentially "skew" the median to exclude seasonal workers that would otherwise be included in the Rule's definition of "employee." See Adopting Release, supra note 105, at 55.

然而，一些人认为，这种灵活性似乎确实给这些公司留下了一种潜在的“扭曲”中位数的方式，以排除季节性工人，否则这些工人将被包含在该规则的“雇员”定义中。请参阅采用版本，前注 105，第 55 页。

See, e.g. , David Martin, The CEO-to-Employee Pay Ratio Rule: Begin Thinking About Messaging Now , Bloomberg Law (Aug.

参见，例如，大卫·马丁，《首席执行官与员工薪酬比率规则：立即开始考虑消息传递》，《彭博法》（2018 年 8 月）

7, 2017), https://www.bna.com/ceotoemployee-pay-ratio-n73014462845/ .

2017 年 7 月），https://www.bna.com/ceotoemployee-pay-ratio-n73014462845/。

As discussed in the next section, the First Amendment may be a further ground for challenge, based on the D.C. Circuit's 2015 decision invalidating a portion of the so-called "conflict minerals rule." See infra "Other SEC Disclosure Rules under Dodd-Frank."

如下一节所述，基于华盛顿特区巡回法院 2015 年宣布部分所谓“冲突矿物规则”无效的决定，第一修正案可能会成为进一步质疑的理由。请参阅下文“多德弗兰克法案下的其他 SEC 披露规则”。

Motor Vehicle Manuf s .

机动车辆制造商。

Ass' n v.

屁股'n v。

State Farm Auto Mutual Ins .

国营农场汽车互助保险公司。

Co .

有限公司

, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v.

, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)（引用 Burlington Truck Lines v.

United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)); see generally CRS Report R44699, An Introduction to Judicial Review of Federal Agency Action , by [author name scrubbed].

美国，371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962))；一般参见 CRS 报告 R44699，《联邦机构行动司法审查简介》，作者：[作者姓名已删除]。

See Michael S.

参见迈克尔·S.

Piwowar, Additional Dissenting Comments on Pay Ratio Disclosure , SEC (Aug.

Piwowar，关于薪酬比率披露的其他异议意见，SEC（8 月 20 日）

7, 2015), https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/additional-dissenting-statement-on-pay-ratio-disclosure.html [hereinafter "Piwowar Additional Dissenting Statement"].

2015 年 7 月 7 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/additional-dissenting-statement-on-pay-ratio-disclosure.html [以下简称“Piwowar 附加异议声明”]。

See SEC Div.

参见 SEC 部门。

of Econ.

经济。

and Risk Analysis, Potential Effect on Pay Ratio Disclosure of Exclusion of Different Percentages of Employees at a Range of Thresholds (June 4, 2015), http://www.sec.gov.comments/s7-07-13/s70713-1556.pdf [hereinafter "June 4 Analysis"]; SEC Div.

风险分析，在一定范围内排除不同比例的员工对薪酬披露的潜在影响（2015 年 6 月 4 日），http://www.sec.gov.comments/s7-07-13/s70713-1556.pdf [以下简称“6 月 4 日分析”]；美国证券交易委员会 (SEC) 部门

of Econ.

经济。

and Risk Analysis, Extension of the Analysis of the Potential Effect on Pay Ratio Disclosure of Exclusion of Different Percentages of Employees at a Range of Thresholds (June 30, 2015), http://www.sec.gov.comments/s7-07-13/s70713-1559.pdf .

风险分析，扩展在一定范围内排除不同比例的员工对薪酬比率披露的潜在影响的分析（2015 年 6 月 30 日），http://www.sec.gov.comments/s7-07-13/s70713-1559.pdf。

Business Roundtable v.

商业圆桌会议诉。

SEC, 647 F.3d 1144, 1148 (D.C. Cir.

SEC，647 F.3d 1144、1148（D.C. Cir.

2011) (vacating rule requiring companies to include information on certain shareholder nominees in its proxy materials because SEC did not adequately assess costs to companies in doing so, including costs of the company's challenges to shareholder nominees); see Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v.

2011）（取消了要求公司在其代理材料中包含某些股东提名人信息的规则，因为 SEC 没有充分评估公司这样做的成本，包括公司对股东提名人提出质疑的成本）；参见美国商会诉美国商会案

SEC, 412 F.3d 133, 143 (D.C. Cir.

SEC，412 F.3d 133, 143（D.C. Cir.

2005) (vacating rule requiring that mutual funds have 75% independent directors to engage in certain types of transactions otherwise prohibited by the Investment Company Act because agency failed to consider costs of compliance to mutual funds); see also Am.

2005）（取消规则，要求共同基金拥有 75% 的独立董事参与《投资公司法》否则禁止的某些类型的交易，因为机构未能考虑共同基金的合规成本）；另见Am.

Equity Inv.

股权投资

Life Ins.

生活插入。

Co. v.

有限公司诉。

SEC, 613 F.3d 166, 177 (D.C. Cir.

SEC，613 F.3d 166, 177（D.C. Cir.

2010) (vacating rule bringing fixed indexed annuities under the SEC's regulation because SEC did not adequately explain its reasoning regarding purported positive effects on competition, efficiency or capital formation, asserting only that the benefits of clarity of regulation and required disclosures to investors would have such impacts).

2010）（取消将固定指数年金纳入 SEC 监管的规则，因为 SEC 没有充分解释其关于所谓对竞争、效率或资本形成的积极影响的推理，仅断言监管清晰的好处和要求向投资者披露的信息会产生此类影响）。

See, e.g., Harv.

参见，例如，Harv。

L。

Rev., supra note 154, at 1151; see Business Roundtable , 647 F.3d at 1148.

Rev.，前注 154，第 1151 页；请参阅商业圆桌会议，647 F.3d，第 1148 页。

Harv.

哈夫。

L。

Rev., supra note 154, at 1151; see Adopting Release, supra note 105, at 176 ("While we believe that the pay ratio disclosure may provide an informational benefit to shareholders in their say-on-pay voting, we are unable to quantify this benefit.").

Rev.，前注 154，第 1151 页；参见《采用发布》，前注 105，第 176 页（“虽然我们认为薪酬比率披露可能会为股东的薪酬发言权投票提供信息利益，但我们无法量化这种利益。”）。

Compare, e.g., Nat'l Assoc.

例如，比较 Nat'l Assoc。

Manufs.

制造商。

SEC, 748 F.3d 359, 369 (D.C. Cir.

SEC，748 F.3d 359, 369（D.C. Cir.

2014), overruled on other grounds by American Meat Institute v.

2014），被美国肉类协会诉美国肉类协会案以其他理由驳回。

U.S. Dept.

美国部门

of Agric., 760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir.

农业部，760 F.3d 18（D.C. Cir.）

2014), (rejecting argument that, under the securities laws, the SEC, in promulgating conflict minerals rule, should have sought to quantify the benefits of the rule), with Am.

2014），（驳斥了根据证券法，美国证券交易委员会在颁布冲突矿物规则时应该寻求量化该规则的好处的论点），与 Am。

Equity Investments , 613 F.3d at 177 (vacating an SEC rule which would have provided additional disclosures and information to investors regarding fixed indexed annuities, and criticizing the SEC for not assessing the current baseline of investor information available and whether an increase in such information would be efficient).

股权投资，613 F.3d，第 177 页（废除了 SEC 规则，该规则本可以向投资者提供有关固定指数年金的额外披露和信息，并批评 SEC 没有评估现有投资者信息的当前基线以及增加此类信息是否有效）。

Chamber of Commerce , 412 F.3d at 142 ([A]lthough we recognize that an agency acting upon the basis of empirical data may be more readily able to show it has satisfied its obligations under the APA .

商会，412 F.3d，第 142 页（[A]尽管我们认识到，基于经验数据行事的机构可能更容易证明其已履行了 APA 规定的义务。

。

we are acutely aware that an agency need not–indeed cannot–base its every action upon empirical data; depending upon the nature of the problem, an agency may be 'entitled to conduct .

我们敏锐地意识到，一个机构不需要——实际上不能——将其每项行动都建立在经验数据的基础上；根据问题的性质，某个机构可能“有权采取行动”。

。

a general analysis based on informed conjecture.'") (citations omitted).

基于知情推测的一般分析。'")（省略引文）。

Note, however, as noted above, the court in Chamber of Commerce did invalidate the relevant rule due to the SEC's lack of consideration of costs.

但请注意，如上所述，由于 SEC 缺乏对成本的考虑，商会法院确实使相关规则无效。

Id.

ID。

at 143.

143。

See H.R.

参见 H.R.

10 , 115th Cong.

10、第115丛。

§ 857 (2017).

§ 857 (2017)。

Individual bills have also been introduced in past Congresses to repeal the provision.

过去的国会也曾提出过个别法案来废除该条款。

See H.R.

参见 H.R.

414 , 114th Cong.

414，第114丛。

(2015); S.

（2015）； S。

1722 , 114th Cong.

1722年，第114届丛。

(2015).

（2015）。

Michael S.

迈克尔·S。

Piwowar, Reconsideration of Pay Ratio Rule Implementation, SEC (Feb.

Piwowar，《薪资比率规则实施的重新考虑》，SEC（2 月 12 日）

6, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/reconsideration-of-pay-ratio-rule-implementation.html .

2017 年 6 月 6 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/reconsideration-of-pay-ratio-rule-implementation.html。

See, e.g. , Nat'l Ass'n of Manufs.

参见，例如，国家制造商协会。

SEC, 800 F.3d 518, 522 (D.C. Cir.

SEC，800 F.3d 518, 522（华盛顿特区）

2015) [hereinafter " NAM II "] (noting that the SEC acknowledged in the rulemaking process that the conflict minerals rule is "directed at achieving overall social benefits" and is not "intended to generate measurable, direct economic benefits to investors or issuers," making the regulatory requirements "quite different from the economic or investor protection benefits that our rules typically strive to achieve.").

2015）[以下简称“NAM II”]（指出美国证券交易委员会在规则制定过程中承认，冲突矿物规则“旨在实现整体社会效益”，而不是“旨在为投资者或发行人产生可衡量的直接经济利益”，这使得监管要求“与我们的规则通常努力实现的经济或投资者保护利益截然不同。”）。

NAM II , 800 F.3d at 525-27, 530.

NAM II，800 F.3d，525-27、530。

The court entered final judgment in the suit, ending the case, in April 2017.

法院于 2017 年 4 月对诉讼作出最终判决，结案。

NAM v.

南诉

SEC, No. 1:13-cv-00635, 2017 WL 3503370 (D.D.C. Apr.

SEC，编号 1:13-cv-00635，2017 WL 3503370（D.D.C. 4 月）

3, 2017).

2017 年 3 月）。

Note that the SEC had already stayed the portion of the rule requiring that companies label their products as "DRC conflict free," "not found to be 'DRC conflict free,'" or "DRC conflict undeterminable" in 2014 pending a final outcome in the case.

请注意，2014 年，SEC 已保留了要求公司在其产品上贴上“无 DRC 冲突”、“未发现‘无 DRC 冲突’”或“无法确定 DRC 冲突”的规则部分，等待该案的最终结果。

Press Release, SEC, SEC Issues Partial Stay of Conflict Minerals Rules (May 2, 2014), https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2014-89 .

新闻稿，SEC，SEC 发布部分暂缓冲突矿产规则（2014 年 5 月 2 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2014-89。

See Turner Broad.

参见特纳·布罗德。

Sys., Inc. v.

系统公司诉。

FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994) (We "apply the most exacting scrutiny to regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content."); Wooley v.

FCC，512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994)（我们“对因言论内容而压制、不利言论或施加不同负担的法规进行最严格的审查。”）；伍利诉。

Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) ("We must .

梅纳德，430 U.S. 705 (1977)（“我们必须.

。

determine whether the State's countervailing interest is sufficiently compelling to justify requiring appellees to display the state motto on their license plates."); Frudden v.

确定国家的反补贴利益是否足以证明要求被上诉人在其车牌上显示国家座右铭的合理性。”）；Frudden v.

Pilling, 742 F.3d 1199, 1207 (9th Cir.

皮林，742 F.3d 1199, 1207（第 9 环）

2014) ("Because [school uniform policy] compels students to endorse a particular viewpoint, strict scrutiny applies—that is, inclusion of the written motto on the .

2014）（“因为[校服政策]迫使学生认可特定观点，因此需要进行严格审查——也就是说，将书面座右铭纳入.

。

uniform shirts must be 'a narrowly tailored means of serving a compelling state interest.'").

制服衬衫必须是“为引人注目的国家利益服务的一种严格定制的手段。”）。

Am.

上午。

Meat Institute v.

肉类研究所诉。

U.S. Dept.

美国部门

of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 22-23 (D.C. Cir.

农业部，760 F.3d 18, 22-23（D.C. Cir.）

2014).

2014）。

See Am.

见阿姆。

Meat Institute v.

肉类研究所诉。

U.S. Dept.

美国部门

of Agric., 760 F.3d 18, 22-23 (D.C. Cir.

农业部，760 F.3d 18, 22-23（D.C. Cir.）

2014); see also NAM II , 800 F.3d at 533 (Srinivasan, J., dissenting).

2014）；另请参见 NAM II，800 F.3d，第 533 页（Srinivasan, J.，反对）。

See , e.g., SEC v.

例如，参见 SEC v.

Wall St. Publ'g Inst., 851 F.2d 365, 372-73 (D.C. Cir.

华尔街出版学院，851 F.2d 365, 372-73（D.C. Cir.）

1988).

1988）。

See NAM I , 748 F.

参见 NAM I，748 F。

3d at 372 (concluding that Wall Street Publishing did not apply to evaluation of conflict minerals rule and further stating that "[i]t is not entirely clear what would result if Wall Street Publishing did apply to this case.").

3d 第 372 页（结论是华尔街出版公司不适用于冲突矿物规则的评估，并进一步指出“尚不完全清楚如果华尔街出版公司确实适用于本案会产生什么结果。”）。

Am.

上午。

Meat Institute , 760 F.3d at 24-26 ("[B]y acting only through a reasonably crafted disclosure mandate, the government meets its burden of showing that the mandate advances its interest in making the 'purely factual and uncontroversial information' accessible to the recipients .

肉类研究所，760 F.3d，第 24-26 页（“只有通过合理设计的披露授权，政府才能履行其责任，表明该授权提高了其对让接收者能够获取‘纯事实且无争议的信息’的兴趣。”

。

[T]his particular method of achieving a government interest will almost always demonstrate a reasonable means-ends relationship, absent a showing that the disclosure is 'unduly burdensome' in a way that 'chill[s] protected commercial speech.'") (internal citations omitted).

他实现政府利益的特定方法几乎总是会证明合理的手段-目的关系，除非表明披露是“过度负担”，从而“使受保护的商业言论变得寒冷”。”）（内部引用省略）。

Gallagher Dissenting Statement, supra note 125 ("We've seen from our Conflict Minerals rule that naming-and-shaming rules can fall afoul of the First Amendment, and so the question is raised in my mind whether pay ratio disclosures are constitutional.").

加拉格尔反对声明，前注 125（“我们从我们的冲突矿产规则中看到，点名羞辱规则可能与第一修正案相冲突，因此我想到了薪酬比率披露是否符合宪法的问题。”）。

Public Statement, Acting Chairman Michael S.

公开声明，代理主席 Michael S.

Piwowar, Reconsideration of Conflict Minerals Rule Implementation (Jan.

Piwowar，冲突矿产规则实施的重新考虑（1 月）

31, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/reconsideration-of-conflict-minerals-rule-implementation.html .

2017 年 3 月 31 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/statement/reconsideration-of-conflict-minerals-rule-implementation.html。

Public Statement, SEC Division of Corporate Finance, Updated Statement on the Effect of the Court of Appeals Decision on the Conflict Minerals Rule (April 7, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/corpfin-updated-statement-court-decision-conflict-minerals-rule ("[T]he Division of Corporation Finance has determined that it will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if companies, including those that are subject to paragraph (c) of Item 1.01 of Form SD, only file disclosure under the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Item 1.01 of Form SD.")

公开声明，美国证券交易委员会公司财务部，关于上诉法院判决对冲突矿产规则影响的更新声明（2017 年 4 月 7 日），https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/corpfin-updated-statement-court-decision-conflict-minerals-rule（“公司财务部已决定，如果公司（包括受冲突矿产规则约束的公司）出现以下情况，将不会建议委员会采取强制执行行动：对于表格 SD 第 1.01 项的 (c) 段，仅根据表格 SD 第 1.01 项的 (a) 和 (b) 段的规定提交披露。”）

See id.; Andrew L.

参见 ID。安德鲁·L。

Magner, Drilling for Disclosure: Resource Extraction Issuer Disclosure and American Petroleum Institute v.

马格纳，钻探披露：资源开采发行人披露和美国石油协会诉。

SEC, 40 J.

美国证券交易委员会，40 J。

Corp.

公司

L。

521, 523 (2015).

521、523（2015）。

Id.

ID。

at 11.

11点。

For example, because another provision in Section 1504 provided for the SEC making public a compilation of data collected under the rule, as opposed to individual companies' reports, the court favored a reading of the statute that the individual reports themselves need not be made public.

例如，由于第 1504 条中的另一项规定规定 SEC 公开根据该规则收集的数据汇编，而不是个别公司的报告，因此法院赞成将该法规解读为个别报告本身无需公开。

Id.

ID。

at 17-19.

17-19 点。

See , e.g., 15 U.S.C.

例如，参见 15 U.S.C.

§ 78m(q)(2)(E) (providing that the rule should support the government's efforts to promote international transparency "to the extent practicable").

§ 78m(q)(2)(E)（规定该规则应支持政府“在可行的范围内”促进国际透明度的努力）。

Final Rule: Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers, Exchange Act Release No. 34-78167, 81 Fed.

最终规则：资源开采发行人支付的披露，交易法发布第 34-78167 号，81 Fed。

Reg.

49359 (July 27, 2016).

49359（2016 年 7 月 27 日）。

The rule was placed on the SEC's "long term" agenda in its Regulatory Flexibility Agenda released in January 2018.

该规则被列入 SEC 2018 年 1 月发布的监管灵活性议程中的“长期”议程。

See Regulatory Flexibility Agenda, 83 Fed.

参见监管灵活性议程，83 Fed。

Reg.

2022 (Jan.

2022年（一月

12, 2018).

2018 年 12 月）。

中文为机器翻译，仅供参考。