Is the Office of the Whistleblower Living up to its Hype?

by NAVEX Global
Contact

2013 Annual Report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program

Back when the Dodd-Frank Act first proposed the creation of the Office of the Whistleblower (OWB) a hue and cry went up from chief compliance officers, general counsels and many others that this would be the ruin of robust compliance reporting within corporations. After all, why would an employee contact the company helpline or whistleblower hotline for free when they could instead go to the OWB and get in line for wheelbarrows full of the U.S. Treasury’s money?

If those fears are realized, one would expect thousands of whistleblower tips and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in rewards. Let’s examine the recently-published 2013 Whistleblower Program Report (OWB Report) to provide clues as to whether these predictions were accurate or hyped up exaggerations.

While the OWB declares victory in this latest report to Congress, the numbers are not exactly overwhelming proof that whistleblowers are making end runs around the internal company reporting mechanisms. While the OWB reported that in Fiscal Year 2013 (ending in October 2013), the number of tips received was 3,238, these tips yielded only four (4) awards involving two distinct cases. In fact, since its inception in 2011, the OWB reported a total of only six (6) awards.

In June 2013, monetary rewards were paid to three individuals relating to the same case. On October 1, 2013, a single reward to an individual was paid. This October 2013 reward is more significant however, due to the fact that it was the single largest award yet and totaled $14,000,000 to-date. More telling is the fact that this single reward comprised the bulk of the total $14,831,965.64 paid out in FY 2013.

Of course many would argue that the success of the OWB should not be judged solely on the number and amount of payouts. Chief of the Office of the Whistleblower, Sean McKessy, makes this exact argument in his cover letter to the OWB Report:

“[T]he bigger story is the untold numbers of current and future investors who were shielded from harm thanks to the information and cooperation provided by whistleblowers. At the end of the day, protecting investors is what the whistleblower program is all about. “

Don’t Retire those Corporate Helplines Just Yet

While many believed that the OWB would harm their in-house compliance reporting and awareness programs, the facts suggest otherwise. In fact, the NAVEX Global 2013 Ethics and Compliance Hotline Benchmarking Survey (analysis of records from the largest database of hotline/helpline reports in the world), indicates that the number of helpline reports per 100 employees is the same or has slightly increased year over year since 2010 when the OWB was begun.

As reported in the Report, this rise in reporting may be due to:

  1. Increasing sophistication of ethics and compliance programs’ communications and training strategies
  2. Involvement and accountability of the board and executive leadership
  3. Media coverage of whistleblower lawsuits and awards
  4. Encouragement from government officials to report observed misconduct

The prevalence and media coverage of whistleblower actions may be creating even greater awareness of the benefits and acceptability of reporting compliance failures through these types of in-house helplines. It remains to be seen if the sensational aspect of the latest OWB award of $14,000,000 begins to finally turn the tide toward the OWB. I suspect it will take quite a few more of these lottery jackpot-like numbers before whistleblowers began to see the OWB as the preferable alternative to in-house reporting and company helplines.

OWB Designed as a Complement, not a Competitor, to Company Compliance Programs

The OWB Report makes this position clear by stating:

“The whistleblower program was designed to complement, rather than replace, existing corporate compliance programs. While it provides incentives for insiders and others with information about unlawful conduct to come forward, it also encourages them to work within their company’s own compliance structure.”

Further data suggesting that the OWB is not diverting reports away from helplines is the very small percentage of reports to helplines which address financial reporting. The OWB Report lists reports on “Corporate Disclosures and Financial” at 17.2 percent of all reports received. In fact this is only a 1 percent decrease from OWB’s 2012 “Corporate Disclosures and Financial” percentage of 18.2 percent. While skeptics could argue that this 1 percent drop could reflect a siphoning away of reports from corporate helplines, this seems unlikely. The 2013 NAVEX Global Hotline Benchmarking Report shows that “Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting” has comprised only 3 percent of all reports to company helplines every year since 2008. 

OWB challenges remain

For the OWB program to be as successful as its supporters hoped, there are a couple of areas that still could be improved.

  1. The process still needs to be more streamlined. While it may be fairly simple to report, directly or through counsel, there are still multiple steps and delays that occur before an award will be made and paid.
  2. Settle the issue of protections against retaliation for reporters. The question is whether a private cause of action exists if an employee reports possible securities violations to authorities other than the SEC. Contrary to earlier lower court decisions and SEC regulations, the most recent 5th Circuit ruling in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013) held that the anti-retaliation provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act provide a private cause of action only for those employees who provide allegations of possible securities law violations directly to the Commission.
  3. Reduce the award qualifying thresholds. The OWB might attract more reports if the award levels began to apply at levels lower than the current $1,000,000 threshold for monetary sanctions.

The Future is Unclear

The current level of reports to the OWB increased only 7 percent year over year and the expected spate of large, headline grabbing monetary awards are still more vision than reality.

To continue to be relevant, the OWB will need to continue to raise awareness of the mission, keep the process simple and informant identities confidential. If the goal is truly to compliment corporate compliance departments then the SEC and the OWB should continue to support in-house company efforts to prevent, detect and respond first at the company level. Coopting this role with the promise of large awards and restricting protections against retaliation only in instances where the reports are made directly to the OWB may send a message to compliance programs that this “complementary partnership” is a sham.

- See more at: http://www.navexglobal.com/blog/2013/11/21/office-whistleblower-living-its-hype#sthash.MfMphQLW.dpuf

2013 Annual Report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program

Back when the Dodd-Frank Act first proposed the creation of the Office of the Whistleblower (OWB) a hue and cry went up from chief compliance officers, general counsels and many others that this would be the ruin of robust compliance reporting within corporations. After all, why would an employee contact the company helpline or whistleblower hotline for free when they could instead go to the OWB and get in line for wheelbarrows full of the U.S. Treasury’s money?

If those fears are realized, one would expect thousands of whistleblower tips and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in rewards. Let’s examine the recently-published 2013 Whistleblower Program Report (OWB Report) to provide clues as to whether these predictions were accurate or hyped up exaggerations.

While the OWB declares victory in this latest report to Congress, the numbers are not exactly overwhelming proof that whistleblowers are making end runs around the internal company reporting mechanisms. While the OWB reported that in Fiscal Year 2013 (ending in October 2013), the number of tips received was 3,238, these tips yielded only four (4) awards involving two distinct cases. In fact, since its inception in 2011, the OWB reported a total of only six (6) awards.

In June 2013, monetary rewards were paid to three individuals relating to the same case. On October 1, 2013, a single reward to an individual was paid. This October 2013 reward is more significant however, due to the fact that it was the single largest award yet and totaled $14,000,000 to-date. More telling is the fact that this single reward comprised the bulk of the total $14,831,965.64 paid out in FY 2013.

Of course many would argue that the success of the OWB should not be judged solely on the number and amount of payouts. Chief of the Office of the Whistleblower, Sean McKessy, makes this exact argument in his cover letter to the OWB Report:

“[T]he bigger story is the untold numbers of current and future investors who were shielded from harm thanks to the information and cooperation provided by whistleblowers. At the end of the day, protecting investors is what the whistleblower program is all about. “

Don’t Retire those Corporate Helplines Just Yet

While many believed that the OWB would harm their in-house compliance reporting and awareness programs, the facts suggest otherwise. In fact, the NAVEX Global 2013 Ethics and Compliance Hotline Benchmarking Survey (analysis of records from the largest database of hotline/helpline reports in the world), indicates that the number of helpline reports per 100 employees is the same or has slightly increased year over year since 2010 when the OWB was begun.

As reported in the Report, this rise in reporting may be due to:

  1. Increasing sophistication of ethics and compliance programs’ communications and training strategies
  2. Involvement and accountability of the board and executive leadership
  3. Media coverage of whistleblower lawsuits and awards
  4. Encouragement from government officials to report observed misconduct

The prevalence and media coverage of whistleblower actions may be creating even greater awareness of the benefits and acceptability of reporting compliance failures through these types of in-house helplines. It remains to be seen if the sensational aspect of the latest OWB award of $14,000,000 begins to finally turn the tide toward the OWB. I suspect it will take quite a few more of these lottery jackpot-like numbers before whistleblowers began to see the OWB as the preferable alternative to in-house reporting and company helplines.

OWB Designed as a Complement, not a Competitor, to Company Compliance Programs

The OWB Report makes this position clear by stating:

“The whistleblower program was designed to complement, rather than replace, existing corporate compliance programs. While it provides incentives for insiders and others with information about unlawful conduct to come forward, it also encourages them to work within their company’s own compliance structure.”

Further data suggesting that the OWB is not diverting reports away from helplines is the very small percentage of reports to helplines which address financial reporting. The OWB Report lists reports on “Corporate Disclosures and Financial” at 17.2 percent of all reports received. In fact this is only a 1 percent decrease from OWB’s 2012 “Corporate Disclosures and Financial” percentage of 18.2 percent. While skeptics could argue that this 1 percent drop could reflect a siphoning away of reports from corporate helplines, this seems unlikely. The 2013 NAVEX Global Hotline Benchmarking Report shows that “Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting” has comprised only 3 percent of all reports to company helplines every year since 2008. 

OWB challenges remain

For the OWB program to be as successful as its supporters hoped, there are a couple of areas that still could be improved.

  1. The process still needs to be more streamlined. While it may be fairly simple to report, directly or through counsel, there are still multiple steps and delays that occur before an award will be made and paid.
  2. Settle the issue of protections against retaliation for reporters. The question is whether a private cause of action exists if an employee reports possible securities violations to authorities other than the SEC. Contrary to earlier lower court decisions and SEC regulations, the most recent 5th Circuit ruling in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013) held that the anti-retaliation provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act provide a private cause of action only for those employees who provide allegations of possible securities law violations directly to the Commission.
  3. Reduce the award qualifying thresholds. The OWB might attract more reports if the award levels began to apply at levels lower than the current $1,000,000 threshold for monetary sanctions.

The Future is Unclear

The current level of reports to the OWB increased only 7 percent year over year and the expected spate of large, headline grabbing monetary awards are still more vision than reality.

To continue to be relevant, the OWB will need to continue to raise awareness of the mission, keep the process simple and informant identities confidential. If the goal is truly to compliment corporate compliance departments then the SEC and the OWB should continue to support in-house company efforts to prevent, detect and respond first at the company level. Coopting this role with the promise of large awards and restricting protections against retaliation only in instances where the reports are made directly to the OWB may send a message to compliance programs that this “complementary partnership” is a sham.

Written by:

NAVEX Global
Contact
more
less

NAVEX Global on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.