SEC Whistleblower Chief: 'Be Careful What You Wish For'
The head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's whistleblower office defended broad anti-retaliation protections for corporate insiders on Wednesday, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider when employees are entitled to those safeguards under the Dodd-Frank Act.
June 28, 2017 at 11:23 AM
8 minute read
The head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's whistleblower office defended broad anti-retaliation protections for corporate insiders on Wednesday, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider when employees are entitled to those safeguards under the Dodd-Frank Act.
Federal appeals courts are split over whether a whistleblower is only protected under Dodd-Frank for bringing information “to the commission.” The SEC has interpreted the law to extend protection against retaliation evinen to those who only flag wrongdoing to their employers. Two federal appellate courts have endorsed the agency's approach, creating a split with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's view that employees need to bring information to the SEC in order to receive protection.
Jane Norberg, who was named director of the SEC whistleblower office in September, said Wednesday that the agency's interpretation of anti-retaliation protections should be favored by companies for making employees more comfortable reporting potential misconduct internally. If the agency's more expansive view of anti-retaliation protections were scaled back, she said, “then the very first time that companies hear about a securities violation may be when the SEC knocks on their door instead of [through] an internal whistleblower.”
“In my view, any other reading would be completely inconsistent with the incentives that the commission put in place to encourage internal reporting,” Norberg, a panelist at a Practising Law Institute event in New York, said. “And I also think, honestly, that any other interpretation would ultimately discourage employees from reporting internally.”
“The ironic part of all of this is that some of the same companies that commented during the rulemaking process about requiring internal reporting or incentivizing internal reporting are some of the very same companies who are in court now challenging an employee's right to bring a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit for reporting the information internally,” she said. “So, in my view, this is a little bit of a thorny issue and a case of 'be careful of what you wish for.'”
Norberg did not name any particular companies. But one stands out for challenging the scope of whistleblower protections after pushing for rules that would encourage internal reporting.
In 2010, as the SEC was building out the whistleblower program, General Electric joined Google, Microsoft and JPMorgan Chase & Co. in raising concerns that the agency's rules would “unnecessarily weaken internal corporate compliance programs.”
Three years later, General Electric was the winner in the Fifth Circuit decision that strictly interpreted the Dodd-Frank Act to define a whistleblower as someone who reports misconduct to the SEC. The ruling upheld a lower court's dismissal of a retaliation claim brought by Khaled Asadi, who alleged that he was fired for raising concerns internally about a possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The Supreme Court will grapple with the scope of whistleblower protections in a challenge that's coming up from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A divided panel in March—ruling in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers—endorsed the SEC's position that corporate insiders need not bring tips “to the commission” in order to receive whistleblower protections. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had previously upheld the SEC's more expansive view of anti-retaliation protections.
In January, the Sixth Circuit skirted the question of whether protections against retaliation extend only to whistleblowers to report to the SEC. The court ruled unanimously against John Verble, a former Morgan Stanley Smith Barney financial adviser who claims he was fired in 2013 for cooperating with the FBI in an investigation.
Related Articles:
|- Corporate Whistleblowers Catch the Supreme Court's Attention
- SEC Names Norberg Permanent Chief of Whistleblower Office
- SEC Makes Exception to 'In Writing' Requirement for Whistleblower Tips
- 'Zombie' Whistleblower, Denied Award for Tip, Takes SEC to Court
- Lessons from a Prudential Whistleblower's Lawyers
The head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's whistleblower office defended broad anti-retaliation protections for corporate insiders on Wednesday, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider when employees are entitled to those safeguards under the Dodd-Frank Act.
Federal appeals courts are split over whether a whistleblower is only protected under Dodd-Frank for bringing information “to the commission.” The SEC has interpreted the law to extend protection against retaliation evinen to those who only flag wrongdoing to their employers. Two federal appellate courts have endorsed the agency's approach, creating a split with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's view that employees need to bring information to the SEC in order to receive protection.
Jane Norberg, who was named director of the SEC whistleblower office in September, said Wednesday that the agency's interpretation of anti-retaliation protections should be favored by companies for making employees more comfortable reporting potential misconduct internally. If the agency's more expansive view of anti-retaliation protections were scaled back, she said, “then the very first time that companies hear about a securities violation may be when the SEC knocks on their door instead of [through] an internal whistleblower.”
“In my view, any other reading would be completely inconsistent with the incentives that the commission put in place to encourage internal reporting,” Norberg, a panelist at a Practising Law Institute event in
“The ironic part of all of this is that some of the same companies that commented during the rulemaking process about requiring internal reporting or incentivizing internal reporting are some of the very same companies who are in court now challenging an employee's right to bring a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit for reporting the information internally,” she said. “So, in my view, this is a little bit of a thorny issue and a case of 'be careful of what you wish for.'”
Norberg did not name any particular companies. But one stands out for challenging the scope of whistleblower protections after pushing for rules that would encourage internal reporting.
In 2010, as the SEC was building out the whistleblower program,
Three years later,
The Supreme Court will grapple with the scope of whistleblower protections in a challenge that's coming up from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A divided panel in March—ruling in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers—endorsed the SEC's position that corporate insiders need not bring tips “to the commission” in order to receive whistleblower protections. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had previously upheld the SEC's more expansive view of anti-retaliation protections.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Financial Services Has a Trust Problem. Can GCs Help Right the Ship?
Covington, Steptoe Form New Groups Amid Demand in Regulatory, Enforcement Space
4 minute readDOJ Files Antitrust Suit Against Visa Alleging It Thwarts Payment-Processing Rivals
Trending Stories
- 1'Abatement by Death?:' Manhattan Prosecutors Suggest Trump Judge Could End Case Without Vacating Jury Verdict
- 2Lateral Partner Retention: Why Some Firms Have a 100% Record While Others Don't
- 3High Verdicts and Venue Rule Land Pa. Courts on Top of 'Judicial Hellhole' List
- 4Austin Appeals Court Rejects Free Speech Defense in Attorney's $2.9M Disgorgement Suit
- 5Home Improvement App Thumbtack Hires Ex-SmileDirectClub Legal Chief
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250