No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

Retaliation? Tell It to the SEC

by Peter Rasmussen
April 3, 2018
in Compliance, Featured
silver whistle on green background

Implications for Compliance Programs from the Digital Realty Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled recently on the Digital Realty v. Somers case, and the decision is significant from a compliance standpoint; potential informants are incentivized to report directly to the SEC rather than through internal channels. Peter Rasmussen of Bloomberg Law offers key tips for corporate counsel to minimize any risks resulting from disclosures by informants to the SEC.

In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers that the Dodd-Frank Act anti-retaliation provisions only protect whistleblowers that report wrongdoing to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The statute defines a whistleblower as “any individual who provides … information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission.”[1] Observing that “[w]hen a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition,” the Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, declined to give deference to an SEC rule that allowed informants to report internally for purposes of anti-retaliation protection.

From a compliance practice standpoint, Digital Realty Trust is a significant decision, as potential informants will have a greater incentive to report wrongdoing directly to the SEC rather than through internal channels. While it may not mark a sea change for corporate compliance and internal reporting programs, companies should review their whistleblower policies and procedures to make sure that that their programs are robust and responsive to the needs of potential informants to minimize any risks resulting from disclosures by informants to the SEC.

Dodd-Frank Background

The Dodd-Frank Act created a bounty program for eligible whistleblowers, as well as anti-retaliation protections for informants, whether or not they qualified for bounty awards. The anti-retaliation measures differed significantly from protective provisions enacted a few years earlier in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.[2] That statute required injured employees to file an administrative claim with the Department of Labor and gave them only six months to do so. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, individuals who suffer retaliation for exposing misconduct may sue directly in federal court and have up to six years to do so. The 2010 legislation also allows for reinstatement, recovery of twice the amount of back pay lost and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees.

The rules adopted by the SEC to implement the statutory provisions recognized the role of corporate compliance and internal reporting programs. A whistleblower’s voluntary participation in an entity’s internal compliance and reporting systems could be a factor in increasing the amount of an award, and interference with internal compliance and reporting would be a factor that could decrease an award amount.[3]

The rules also contain a provision under which a whistleblower may receive an award for reporting original information to the company’s internal compliance and reporting systems if the company reports information to the SEC.[4] Under this provision, all the information provided by the company to the SEC is attributed to the whistleblower, which means that the whistleblower will get credit, and potentially a greater award, for any additional information generated by the entity in its investigation. The rule also specifically does not require SEC reporting for protection under the anti-retaliation provisions.

The Digital Realty Case

Paul Somers sued his employer, Digital Realty Trust, Inc., under the Dodd-Frank Act anti-retaliation provisions. According to Somers, the company dismissed him as a direct result of his reports to management about his supervisor’s violations of the securities laws. Somers made his reports to senior management and did not make any disclosures to the SEC. The district court found for Somers, and on appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court holding. Somers’ internal reporting was sufficient, concluded the appellate panel, stating that the “DFA anti-retaliation provision unambiguously and expressly protects from retaliation all those who report to the SEC and who report internally.”[5] This interpretation is interesting, because the Ninth Circuit reached the result based on its reading of the statutory language alone, rather than on a Chevron-based deference to the SEC’s rulemaking.

At the Supreme Court, in a decision in which all the justices supported the result (Justices Thomas and Sotomayor argued in dueling concurring opinions on the proper role of legislative history), three little words ruled the day — “to the Commission.” Justice Ginsburg wrote that Congress clearly and unambiguously spoke on the question of the proper definition of a whistleblower. In support of this view, she cited the Dodd-Frank provision that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The whistleblower protection provision in that title imposed no requirement that any information be conveyed to a government agency. According to Justice Ginsburg, quoting an earlier decision, “when Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another, this Court presumes that Congress intended a difference in meaning.”

Chevron’s deference to the SEC’s rules fared no better than the former employee’s statutory construction arguments, as Justice Ginsburg made short work of the proposition:

“Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” she asserted, “and accordingly, we do not accord deference to the contrary view advanced by the SEC in Rule 21F–2. The statute’s unambiguous whistleblower definition, in short, precludes the Commission from more expansively interpreting that term.”

Prospects for Compliance Practice

What does Digital Realty mean from a compliance standpoint? Given that whistleblowers have always had to report to the SEC to claim an award, it is doubtful that the case will prompt an overwhelming flood of new reports to the Commission. Companies must, however, be prepared for the reality that a discrete pool of individuals now have an incentive to report wrongdoing directly to the SEC rather than through internal compliance channels. That pool will likely be composed of potential informants who are represented by counsel. Employment lawyers may be expected to recommend to their clients that they report their information to the SEC while still employed in order to protect their rights. Employees who are wrongly terminated without having first reported to the SEC may still seek recovery under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but as noted above, that act has an impractically short 180-day limitations period.

Although Digital Realty prevailed in the litigation, it is difficult to imagine them as having won the case, as the reputational costs of retaliatory firings can be significant. In addition, from a company standpoint, if securities law violations have occurred, it is far better for the SEC to hear about them from the company than from a tipster, when credit for self-reporting and remediation can be available.

A key step companies should take is an obvious one: avoid problems at the outset. Initially, retaliatory actions are fraught with risks and must be avoided. These actions can run afoul of state and local law, as well as the federal securities laws, and must be avoided. Companies should also evaluate their internal control systems to make sure that the structures and procedures are sufficient to prevent and detect wrongdoing.

The next step is to craft a robust internal reporting mechanism featuring a tip line that employees and others will actually use. The reporting system should be accessible, anonymous, confidential and responsive. Companies should also conduct regular training programs to publicize the program, to familiarize employees with how to use the system, to explain how the program works and how tips are handled and to describe the kinds of conduct that should and should not be reported.

An unanswered question from Digital Realty is whether the burden of the decision will fall more heavily on companies or on potential informants. Employees and others can avoid their problems entirely, by contacting the SEC, and in any case, there are always other jobs to be had. The prospect of a surprise phone call from the Division of Enforcement resulting from an informant’s tip certainly would be an unsettling one, however, and one to be avoided. If your company thinks that the answer to a securities law problem is to fire the employee who reported the violation, it is asking the wrong questions.

[1] 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6).

[2] 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a)(1).

[3] 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-6.

[4] 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4.

[5] Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc., 850 F.3d 1045 (2017).


Tags: Dodd-Frank ActInternal ReportingSECWhistleblowing
Previous Post

The Procrastinator’s Guide to the GDPR

Next Post

Bloomberg Law Analytics Tool Provides Insights Into Health Care Fraud Enforcement Trends And Outcomes

Peter Rasmussen

Peter Rasmussen

Peter Rasmussen is a Senior Legal Editor with Bloomberg Law with more than 30 years of experience. He is an honors graduate of DePauw University with a bachelor’s degree in history and holds a master’s degree from the Graduate College of Liberal Arts of the University of Illinois at Chicago and a law degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. At Bloomberg Law, he concentrates on corporate transactions and federal securities law.

Related Posts

esg sec clawback confusion

Unpacking the SEC’s Executive Compensation Clawback Rule

by John Peiserich
January 4, 2023

The SEC has finalized its long-awaited clawback policy mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, issuing final rules that are scheduled to...

hottest takes

The Hottest Compliance Takes of 2022

by Staff and Wire Reports
December 14, 2022

Nobody was canceled for anything they wrote for our pages in 2022 — at least that we know of. But...

cci top 10 stories collage

Top 10 Compliance Stories of 2022

by Jennifer L. Gaskin
December 7, 2022

The more things change, the more they stay the same. This time last year, we summarized the top 10 ESG...

NAVEX regional whistleblowing hotline benchmark report_f

Navex 2022 Regional Whistleblowing Hotline Benchmark Report

by Corporate Compliance Insights
November 9, 2022

Explore benchmark data and regional comparisons for Europe, APAC, North America and South America. Regional Benchmark Report 2022 Regional Whistleblowing...

Next Post
Bloomberg Law Analytics Tool Provides Insights Into Health Care Fraud Enforcement Trends And Outcomes

Bloomberg Law Analytics Tool Provides Insights Into Health Care Fraud Enforcement Trends And Outcomes

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT