Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: August 19, 2015
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe agency elected to clarify its position in the wake of legal disputes over whether an employer must report misconduct directly to the SEC in order to be eligible for the law’s anti-retaliation protections.

Under Dodd-Frank, 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 prohibits an employer from retaliating against any lawful act done by the whistleblower. The qualifying activities set forth in the anti-retaliation provision include providing information to the SEC, participating in SEC actions, and “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.”
In an attempt to rectify the ambiguity created when the two provisions are read together, the SEC rules implementing Dodd-Frank also include two definitions of “whistleblower.” Rule 21F-9(a) addresses eligibility for monetary awards, while the requirements for anti-retaliation protections are set forth in Rule 21F-2(b)(1). Rule 21F-9(a) provides, in relevant part, that, “[t]o be considered a whistleblower under Section 21F …, [an individual] must submit [his or her] information … by either of these methods: (1) Online, through the Commission’s website …; or (2) By mailing or faxing a Form TCR … to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower ….” Meanwhile, Rule 21F-2(b)(1)(iii) expressly provides that “[t]he anti-retaliation protections apply whether or not [an individual] satisf[ies] the requirements, procedures and conditions to qualify for an award.”
Despite the SEC’s attempt to clarify the definition of whistleblower, legal disputes have still arisen. In Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the Dodd-Frank provisions to restrict the scope of protection to those who report directly to the SEC. In reaching its decision, the federal appeals court failed to give deference to the SEC’s interpretive rules. However, other courts have reached the opposite conclusion.
The SEC’s interpretive guidance is intended to further clarify the agency’s position. It states that Rule 21F-9(a) is strictly procedural and applies only to help determine an individual’s status as a whistleblower for purposes of Section 21F’s award and confidentiality provisions. As further explained in the guidance:
We adopted Rule 21F-9(a) to specify the reporting procedures that must be followed by an individual who seeks to qualify as a whistleblower under Rule 21F-2(a) and thus to be eligible for an award and the heightened confidentiality protections,” the SEC said in its guidance. “[W]e have consistently understood Rule 21F-9(a) as a procedural rule that applies only to help determine an individual’s status as a whistleblower for purposes of Section 21F’s award and confidentiality programs.
In support of its position, the SEC highlighted that an alternative approach would be inconsistent with its goals in implementing the whistleblower program. “Under our interpretation, an individual who reports internally and suffers employment retaliation will be no less protected than an individual who comes immediately to the Commission,” the SEC guidance states. “Providing equivalent employment retaliation protection for both situations removes a potentially serious disincentive to internal reporting by employees in appropriate circumstances.”
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
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!