In 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
("SOX"), which extends whistleblower protections to
certain individuals who report conduct they reasonably believe
constitutes a violation of federal mail, wire, or bank fraud, any
rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), or any provision of federal law relating to
shareholder fraud. In 2010, President Obama signed into law the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
("Dodd-Frank"). Dodd-Frank prohibits employers from
retaliating against employees for disclosing information as
required or protected under SOX, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the
jurisdiction of the SEC. Dodd-Frank also required the SEC to
implement a new whistleblower program – the so-calledbounty
program– that pays to whistleblowers cash awards of between
10% and 30% of amounts the SEC recovers based on the
whistleblower's report.
As described in more detail below, to date in 2016, the SEC has
awarded four individuals a total of $2.6 million through its bounty
program and its Office of the Whistleblower has published its
annual report for fiscal year 2015, which reveals that
whistleblower tips continue to rise, as they have each year since
the commencement of the program. In addition, a number of notable
recent federal court decisions, including one issued by a circuit
court, have provided helpful guidance regarding the standard for
establishing causation under SOX.
SEC Issues More Bounty Awards in Early 2016
Thus far this year, the SEC issued several bounty awards in an
aggregate amount exceeding $2.6 million. On January 15, 2016, the
SEC announced that it had awarded more than $700,000 to an
unidentified whistleblower – an "industry expert"
– who provided "detailed analysis" to the agency.
This is the first whistleblower award issued by the SEC to a
company outsider for analysis of a potential securities law
violation. Andrew Ceresney, Director of the SEC's Enforcement
Division, explained in the Commission's press release that
"[t]he voluntary submission of high-quality analysis by
industry experts can be every bit as valuable as firsthand
knowledge of wrongdoing by company insiders."
Less than two months later, on March 8, 2016, the SEC awarded three
whistleblowers a bounty of almost $2 million. The bulk of the award
– $1.8 million – was issued to an individual who
provided original information that prompted the SEC to open an
investigation and for providing valuable information to the agency
throughout the investigative process. The other two whistleblowers
were awarded more than $65,000 each for providing information after
the SEC's investigation had commenced. Sean McKessey, Chief of
the SEC's Office of the Whistleblower, stated in an SEC press
release: "We're seeing a significant uptick in
whistleblower tips over prior years, and we believe that's
attributable to increased public awareness of our program and the
tens of millions of dollars we've paid to whistleblowers for
information that helped us bring successful enforcement
actions."
Important Takeaways From the SEC's 2015 Annual Whistleblower Report
On November 16, 2015, the SEC's Office of the Whistleblower
released its annual report for fiscal year 2015, reporting that it
received nearly 4,000 whistleblower tips in the year ended
September 30, 2015, a 30% increase from fiscal year 2012. The
report states that for each full year that the SEC's
whistleblower program has been in operation, the SEC has received
an increasing number of whistleblower tips.
The SEC received whistleblower tips and complaints from all 50
states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. In the United States, the largest number of
whistleblower complaints and tips were from California (646), New
York (261), Florida (220), and Texas (220). The SEC also received
tips from individuals in 61 foreign countries, the majority of
which originated in the United Kingdom (72).
In fiscal year 2015, the SEC awarded more than $37 million to eight
whistleblowers, including one award for the maximum payment of 30%
of amounts collected in connection with the SEC's first
anti-retaliation case. That whistleblower received more than
$600,000. The SEC reported that in determining the award
percentage, it considered the "unique hardships" the
whistleblower suffered as a result of reporting, including being
removed from his or her position, tasked with investigating the
very conduct the whistleblower reported to the SEC, and otherwise
marginalized at the company.
The annual report provided interesting facts about the
program's whistleblower award recipients, including the
following:
- Almost half of award recipients were
current or former employees of the targeted company.Of those,
approximately 80% raised their concerns internally to their
supervisors or compliance personnel or otherwise understood that
the company knew of the violations before they reported the
violations to the SEC.The remaining award recipients were investors
who were victims of the alleged fraud, professionals working in a
related industry, or individuals who had a personal relationship
with the alleged wrongdoer.
- Approximately 20% of award recipients
submitted their tips to the SEC anonymously through counsel.
- Roughly half of the whistleblowers who have received awards to date "caused [the SEC] to open an investigation." The other half received an award "because their original information significantly contributed to an existing investigation."
The SEC also reported that one of its areas of focus in 2015 was whether employers were using confidentiality, severance, and other types of agreements "to interfere with an individual's ability to report potential wrongdoing to the SEC." Exchange Act Rule 21F‑17(a) provides that "[n]o person may take any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement... with respect to such communications." On April 1, 2015, the Commission brought its first enforcement action regarding this issue. When KBR, Inc. interviewed employees in connection with internal investigations, it required them to sign an agreement prohibiting them from discussing the substance of the interview without prior approval by KBR's legal department. The agreement indicated that an unauthorized disclosure could lead to disciplinary action, including termination of employment. The SEC found that this confidentiality agreement "impeded whistleblowers" in violation of Rule 21F-17(a). According to the report, the Office of the Whistleblower will continue to focus on confidentiality, severance, and other agreements in 2016.
California District Court Holds That Internal Whistleblowers Are Protected Under Dodd-Frank and Board Members May Be Individually Liable Under Both SOX and Dodd-Frank
On October 23, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California ruled that the anti-retaliation
provisions of Dodd-Frank apply to whistleblowers who report
information to the employer without the requirement of also
reporting to the SEC. Wadler v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., No.
15-cv-02356-JCS, 2015 WL6438670 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2015). The
court found that a conflict in the language of the statute rendered
it ambiguous: While the statute defines "whistleblower"
to mean only those who report violations to the SEC, the
substantive anti-retaliation provision applies to all
whistleblowers who provide information as required or protected
under SOX, which extends protection to internal whistleblowers even
if they do not report alleged wrongdoing to the SEC. Based on this
ambiguity, the court afforded deference to the interpretation of
the SEC's Rule 21F-2(b)(1), which provides protection under
Dodd-Frank for individuals who provide information
internally.
By the same decision, the district court held that directors may be
held individually liable for retaliating against whistleblowers
under both SOX and Dodd-Frank. Plaintiff Sanford Wadler, the former
general counsel of defendant Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., filed suit
against the company and its individual board members after his
employment was terminated by the board, asserting a variety of
claims including retaliation under SOX and Dodd-Frank. The district
court ruled that (a) although the language of SOX is ambiguous, the
legislative intent and context of SOX suggest that board members
may be held individually liable as agents and (b) Congress intended
that Dodd-Frank provide for such liability, and therefore board
members may be held individually liable for retaliation against
whistleblowers.
Southern District of New York Court Dismisses SOX and Dodd-Frank Claims, Finding Plaintiff Could Not Show That Her Complaint Contributed to Her Termination
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a plaintiff's SOX and Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims on the grounds that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence establishing that a protected complaint she made concerning the defendant's SEC proxy statements contributed to her termination.Yang v. Navigators Group, Inc., No. 13‑cv-2073, 2016 WL 67790 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2016). Plaintiff Jennifer Yang was employed with defendant Navigators Group, Inc. as its Chief Risk Officer. She alleged that, in fulfilling her responsibilities, she discovered a variety of risk assessment issues and claimed that the company's SEC filings inaccurately reflected its risk management. Yang alleged that shortly after she communicated her concerns to Navigators' leadership, the company terminated her employment in violation of SOX and Dodd-Frank. Although Yang was terminated only two weeks after a protected complaint, the court held that "[t]emporal proximity does not . . . compel a finding of causation, particularly when there is a legitimate intervening basis for the adverse action." The court concluded that a "purportedly terrible presentation" by Yang, which "occurred in the intervening time between her complaint and her termination," weakened any inference of retaliation that could be drawn from Yang's complaint.
Third Circuit Rejects SOX Whistleblower Claims, Finding Plaintiff Could Not Show Causation
The Third Circuit issued an important decision concerning
causation under SOX in Weist v. Tyco Electronics Corp.,
812 F.3d 319 (3d Cir. 2016).The plaintiff, Jeffrey Weist, a
thirty-year employee who worked in Tyco's accounts payable
department, claimed that he was fired because he raised concerns
about requests to process certain expenses submitted in connection
with company events, including a $350,000 event at a Bahamas resort
with mermaid greeters and costumed pirates and wenches. Tyco
asserted that more than eight months after Weist engaged in what he
contended was protected activity, a professional within Tyco's
human resources department, who had no involvement with or
knowledge of Wiest's alleged protected activity, conducted an
investigation after she received multiple complaints that Weist
made inappropriate sexual comments to several Tyco employees and
had engaged in improper sexual relationships with subordinates.
Tyco contended that the findings from this investigation led to the
termination decision and that the decision was unrelated to the
accounting issues Weist had raised.
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of the company, concluding that the
plaintiff did not present evidence to establish a causal connection
between his protected activity and the termination decision. The
court noted that SOX requires a plaintiff to provide evidence
showing, among other things, that his protected activity was a
"contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the
complaint." The court concluded that a reasonable jury could
not find that the alleged protected activity was a contributing
factor in the termination decision because (a) any inference of
causation due to temporal proximity was "minimal" because
of the ten-month gap in time and (b)the record "overwhelmingly
demonstrate[d]" legitimate intervening events between the
protected activity and the termination decision. Moreover, the
court noted that the company praised the plaintiff before and after
his protected activity, the human resources employee who
investigated the sexual harassment complaints against the plaintiff
was unaware of his alleged protected activity, and the
plaintiff's colleagues who engaged in similar activity were not
subjected to negative treatment.
In addition, the court determined that Tyco presented ample
evidence showing that it would have terminated the plaintiff's
employment even in the absence of protected activity. Importantly,
the court stated "it is not our role to second-guess a human
resources decision that followed a thorough investigation,"
noting the absence of any evidence casting doubt on the integrity
of the investigation.
Implications for Employers
The Supreme Court may soon be asked to consider the question of
whether whistleblowers must report wrongdoing to the SEC in order
to be protected under Dodd-Frank. In the meantime, employers should
be aware that whistleblowers who report concerns only to their
employers may be covered by the anti-retaliation provisions of
Dodd-Frank, within the Second Circuit and other jurisdictions.
Furthermore, board members and other decision-makers must consider
that they may be held individually liable for any actions that
could be perceived as retaliatory.
The statistics set out in the SEC's 2015 annual report confirm
that whistleblower tips continue to escalate and that the vast
majority of tipsters first report their concerns internally to
supervisors or compliance personnel. These facts, together with the
Yang and Weist cases, underscore the value of documenting the
reasons for termination and conducting thorough investigations when
employees raise concerns relating to potential violations of
securities laws.
Finally, employers should review their employment agreements,
confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, handbooks, and
separation agreements to ensure that the provisions in these
documents do not run afoul of the SEC's dictates.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.