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.

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

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Author: Graham Staton

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Author: Chris Seelinger
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!