Confidentiality Agreement Chinese Wall
  The phrase “already above the wall” is used by employees in the equity portfolio to refer to simple collaborators who work at all times without an ethical wall. Examples are members of the Wall of China Department, most compliance employees, lawyers, and some NYSE-licensed analysts. The term “above the wall” is used when an employee who is not normally aware of the monitored information receives sensitive information. Infringements, considered half-random, generally did not face sanctions at the height of the dotcom era. These and other conflicts of interest were widespread during this period. A great scandal was revealed when it was discovered that research analysts were encouraged to publish positive analyses of companies in which they held shares or of close parties or of companies dependent on the investment banking divisions of these same research companies. Since then, the U.S. government has passed laws that strengthen the use of ethical walls such as Title V of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to avoid such conflicts of interest. In recent decades, the use of this term has been the subject of controversy, particularly in the legal and banking sectors. The term can be seen both as culturally insensitive and as an inappropriate reflection on Chinese culture and trade, now largely integrated into the global market. In Peat, Marwick, Mitchell &Co. v.
Superior Court (1988), Justice Harry W. Low, a Chinese American, a concurring position to “express my deep objection to the use of this phrase in this context.” He called the term “a piece of legal floating debris to be abandoned strongly” and proposed “ethics wall” as a more appropriate alternative. He claimed that “the continued use of the term would be insensitive to the ethnic identity of the many people of Chinese descent.”   The origin of the sentence is the Wall of China.  The term became popular in the United States after the stock market crash of 1929, when the United States would also have to give up privacy, but they might not be appropriate or inappropriate. See Rule 11 ASCR (Conflict of Duties concerning current clients) and Ross Perrett`s article (see below) on pages 46-48. . . .