SEC Awards $3 Million To Two Whistleblowers Who First Made Internal Reports, Even Though Reporting To SEC Was Not “Voluntary”
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a joint award of $3 million to two whistleblowers who the SEC stated provided information that led to a successful enforcement action aimed at protecting retail investors. SEC Press Release, SEC Awards $3 Million to Joint Whistleblowers, No. 2019-81 (June 3, 2019). According to the SEC, both whistleblowers reported the alleged violations internally before reporting to the SEC. Interestingly, the Commission found that neither whistleblower was legally entitled to the award because their submissions were not “voluntary,” but the SEC relied on its discretion to issue the award regardless in an apparently conscious effort to further incentivize whistleblowing. SEC Whistleblower Award Proceeding, File No. 2019-7 (June 3, 2019).
SEC Awards Total Of $50 Million To Two Whistleblowers In A Single Action, While Denying Five Other Claimants
On March 26, 2019, the SEC announced two multi-million dollar awards to whistleblowers who made reports of misconduct that led to a successful enforcement action after denying claims of five other whistleblowers in the same case (only two appealed the preliminary determination denying their application). SEC Press Release, SEC Awards $50 Million to Two Whistleblowers, No. 2019-42 (Mar. 26, 2019). One whistleblower received $37 million, which represents the third-largest SEC whistleblower award in history, while the other whistleblower received a $13 million award, a difference apparently based on the speed with which each reported the misconduct to the SEC and the relative value of their information. These significant awards continue a trend of rising awards by the SEC, and the number of whistleblowers in the action highlights the degree to which the SEC has successfully incentivized whistleblowers. Since 2012, the SEC has now awarded approximately $376 million to 61 whistleblowers, with an average award of over $6 million.
SEC, Under New Safe Harbor, Awards More Than $2.2 Million To Whistleblower Who First Reported To Another Federal Agency
On April 5, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a whistleblower award of more than $2.2 million in connection with a report of misconduct. The whistleblower, a former company insider, first reported information to a federal agency other than the SEC, which in turn referred the matter to the SEC, which promptly opened an enforcement investigation. Subsequently, within 120 days of the original reporting to the other federal agency, the whistleblower reported the same information directly to the SEC. The resulting SEC enforcement action resulted in monetary sanctions, and the whistleblower received a percentage of the sanctions as an award. Despite initially reporting to another federal agency, the whistleblower received an award because he or she reported the same information to the SEC within 120 days and subsequently cooperated with the enforcement investigation.
Record-Breaking Whistleblowing Awards Continue Incentives To Report Misconduct To The SEC
On March 19, 2018, the SEC announced three multi-million dollar awards to whistleblowers in connection with reports of misconduct. SEC Press Release, SEC Announces Its Largest-Ever Whistleblower Awards, No. 2018-44 (Mar. 19, 2018). One whistleblower received $33 million, which represents the largest SEC whistleblower award in history; the two other whistleblowers will split a $50 million award. These significant awards continue a trend of rising awards by the SEC, which continues to focus on publicly incentivizing and protecting whistleblowers.
Supreme Court Finds Dodd-Frank Does Not Protect Internal Whistleblowers
On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the anti-retaliation provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) do not cover individuals who do not report violations of the securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, No. 16-1276 (Feb. 21, 2018). Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained that Dodd-Frank explicitly defined the term “whistleblower” to include only individuals who report to the SEC and that, when a statute explicitly defines a term, courts must follow that definition. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u–6(a)(6). Respondent Paul Somers, who had only reported within his company, was therefore ineligible for Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protections. We previously covered the Court’s skepticism of Somers’ position at oral argument. See Shearman & Sterling LLP: Government/Regulatory Enforcement, Supreme Court Oral Argument Suggests Skepticism Over SEC Rule Protecting Internal Whistleblowers from Retaliation under Dodd-Frank (Dec. 5, 2017).
Supreme Court Oral Argument Suggests Skepticism Over SEC Rule Protecting Internal Whistleblowers From Retaliation Under Dodd-Frank
On November 28, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, No. 16-1276, a case that raises the question whether an employee who reported alleged misconduct internally, but did not make a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or the “Commission”), is eligible for protections against retaliation afforded to whistleblowers by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”). In 2011, the SEC issued a rule stating that internal whistleblowers were subject to protections under Dodd-Frank, even though the text of the statute defines “whistleblowers” as only those who reported information to the SEC. 16 C.F.R. 240.21F-2(b)(1). While a decision may remain months away, the questions from the Justices suggested considerable skepticism as to the SEC’s statutory interpretation and rulemaking process.
California Jury Finds That Bio-Rad Violated The Whistleblower Protections Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act By Terminating Its General Counsel
On February 6, 2017, a federal jury in San Francisco, California found that Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., a life sciences and clinical diagnostics company, violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s whistleblower protections. The violation stemmed from Bio-Rad’s decision to terminate its former General Counsel, Sanford Wadler, after he internally reported potential Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) violations to the company’s audit committee. See Wadler v. BioRad Laboratories, Inc. et al., No 3:15-cv-2356 Final Verdict Form.
SandRidge Energy Settles Claims Of Whistleblower Retaliation And Overly Restrictive Settlement Agreements
On December 20, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a settled administrative proceeding against SandRidge Energy, Inc. (“SandRidge”) for allegedly using inappropriately restrictive language in employee separation agreements and for retaliating against a whistleblower, the fifth such claim the SEC brought in 2016. SandRidge, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, agreed to pay a $1.4 million penalty, subject to the company’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, to resolve the SEC’s claims. In the Matter of SandRidge Energy, Inc., Admin. Proc. File No. 3-17739 (Dec. 20, 2016).
German Financial Regulator’s Decision To Open Whistleblower Office Highlights International Focus On Protecting Whistleblowers
On July 1, 2016, Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (“BaFin”) announced the creation of a centralized office for whistleblowers to report regulatory violations. BaFin also noted in its announcement that it believed that protecting whistleblowers was a top priority. Numerous regulators throughout the world have now created dedicated whistleblower offices, and BaFin’s efforts seem fully in line with this growing and impactful trend.