
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: September 30, 2015
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comIn Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy, a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals broadly interpreted the statute to allow claims from internal tipsters that do not also notify the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The decision directly conflicts with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal’s holding in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C.; so, the U.S. Supreme Court may have the final say.
As previously discussed on this blog, the Dodd-Frank Act expressly prohibits retaliation by employers against whistleblowers and creates a private cause of action for those who are discharged or discriminated against by their employers in violation of the statute. Under the statute, a “whistleblower” is defined as “any individual who provides, or 2 or more individuals acting jointly who provide, information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the [SEC], in a manner established by rule or regulation, by the [SEC].”
A separate provision of the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits retaliation against a whistleblower “because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower . . . in making disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 . . . , [the Securities Exchange Act of 1934], section 1513 (e) of title 18, and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.”
When read together, Dodd-Frank is ambiguous as to whether a whistleblower must complain directly to the SEC in order to qualify as a whistleblower and benefit from the law’s anti-retaliation protections. However, the SEC’s implementing rule provides protection from retaliation to workers who make protected disclosures regardless of whether they report the information to the SEC or another source.
In Asadi, the Fifth Circuit refused to give deference to the SEC’s interpretative rule, holding that “the plain language of the Dodd-Frank whistleblower-protection provision creates a private cause of action only for individuals who provide information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the SEC.”
The majority of the Second Circuit disagreed, concluding that the SEC’s interpretation of Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower provisions is entitled to deference in light of the ambiguity. Accordingly, the appeals court overturned the trial court’s ruling that the provisions protect only employees discharged for reporting violations to the SEC and not those reporting violations only internally.
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut district courts are bound by the Berman decision. Therefore, until the U.S. Supreme intervenes (if it elects to do so), employers should be aware that whistleblowers that complain internally but do not report to the SEC may be entitled to Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!