The Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program: An Analysis of the SEC’s Second Annual Report, Best Practices for Dealing with Whistleblowers, and Recent Cases Interpreting the Scope of the Anti-Retaliation Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act

by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

[author: Raymond Banoun]

I. Introduction

On November 15, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "the Commission") issued its Second Annual Report on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program ("the Report"), covering the period between October 1, 2011, and September 30, 2012. The Report, which satisfies congressional reporting obligations found in sections 922(a) and 924(d) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, §§ 922(a), 924(d), 124 Stat. 1841 (2010) ("the Dodd-Frank Act", the "Act", or "Dodd-Frank"), provides insight into the effectiveness of the Commission's whistleblower bounty program,1 the activities of the office charged with administering the program, and the Investor Protection Fund from which bounty payments are made. The issuance of the Report offers an opportunity for companies to understand the focus of the Commission's whistleblower program and to reevaluate their own compliance and internal reporting systems.

II. Highlights of the Second Annual Report

In what is perhaps the most significant development in the whistleblower program's short history, the SEC made its first award in Fiscal Year 2012. According to the Report, the whistleblower received the maximum award of 30% for helping the SEC stop an "ongoing multi-million dollar fraud."2 The Report indicates that fines in the judicial action already exceed $1 million, with further judgments and sanctions possible.3 Because the government collected approximately $150,000 by the end of the fiscal year, the SEC was able to pay nearly $50,000 to the whistleblower.4 While the percentage awarded was the maximum of 30%, the total dollar amount is relatively modest considering that most securities cases involve hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and penalties, and thus the potential remains for far greater awards than the one discussed in the Report.5 Because few details about the whistleblower, the fraudulent activity involved, or the company have been provided due to confidentiality provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act,6 the larger significance of the award is hard to ascertain.7 Interestingly, the SEC also denied another tipper in the same matter an award, reportedly because that person's information did not contribute significantly to the SEC's investigation.

As it did last year, the Report also provided information on the number of whistleblower tips, complaints, and referrals ("TCRs") made during Fiscal Year 2012. According to the Report, 3,001 TCRs were received by the SEC's Office of the Whistleblower during the reporting period.8 Nearly 50.0% of those TCRs fell within three complaint categories: Corporate Disclosures (18.2%), Offering Fraud (15.5%), and Manipulation (15.2%).9 The 3,001 TCRs came from not only the United States (including all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico), but forty-nine other countries as well.10 With respect to domestic TCRs, of which there were 2,507, nearly 50.0% came from six states: California (17.4%), Florida (8.1%), New Jersey (4.1%), New York (9.8%), Texas (6.3%), and Washington (4.1%).11 As for foreign TCRs, nearly 60.0% of the 324 came from Commonwealth countries,12 with another 8.0% from the People's Republic of China.13

Although only one award was paid out in Fiscal Year 2012, the SEC's Office of the Whistleblower posted 143 Notices of Covered Action-notices of enforcement judgments and orders that imposed monetary sanctions of $1 million or more.14 According to the Report, the Office of the Whistleblower continues to review and process applications for whistleblower awards based on those notices received during Fiscal Year 2012.15

III. Best Practices for Companies Dealing with Whistleblowers

The Report provides a reminder to public companies of the critical importance of establishing and maintaining a tailored compliance and internal reporting program. Although off-the-shelf programs may be a useful start, they are unsuitable as a final form for most public companies. Indeed, guidance from both the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the SEC stress the importance of having a compliance program tailored to specific risks and nuances of a company and its industry.16

Companies should strive to encourage employees to report any suspected violations of law or the company's code of conduct to company compliance, internal audit, or legal personnel. Company culture-including "tone at the top"-is an important factor not only in encouraging employees to make use of internal reporting systems but also in demonstrating a commitment to compliance with the laws. Companies should ensure that employees are trained on the company's code of conduct and on the requirement to comply with applicable laws, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA").17 During the training, appropriate emphasis should be placed on encouraging employees to utilize internal reporting channels, such as hotlines, and on the importance of reporting violations of the code of conduct or laws. Such training programs are critical to reducing violations of law, to mitigating any sanctions for the company if employees violate the law,18 and to encouraging internal reporting of suspected misconduct.

A critical component of every corporate compliance program, especially now, is a formalized process to identify and promptly respond to potential violations of federal securities laws. Companies must have anonymous reporting hotlines for employees and vendors and should develop a system in which tips and complaints can be prioritized based on risk. A pre-identified outside counsel should be engaged to investigate more serious allegations such as alleged misconduct by management, violations of the FCPA, and significant accounting violations. With the potential for employees to go straight to the SEC with allegations, companies must treat every allegation seriously and promptly investigate potential violations of federal securities laws so that the company can be in a position to remediate the wrongdoing and to self-report the possible violations to the SEC and, where appropriate, to the DOJ.

Companies face additional challenges in situations where a whistleblower complaint is brought to their attention in the first instance by the SEC. In those instances, companies should recognize that the SEC Enforcement Staff nonetheless will welcome a credible and thorough internal investigation, even after having received a whistleblower tip or complaint.19

Given the Dodd-Frank Act's anti-retaliation provisions,20 companies should consider whether and to what extent they want to take steps to identify the individual who reported to the Commission. If a company has uncovered the identity of the whistleblower, then it must determine whether and to what extent it wants to keep the whistleblower informed of the status (but not the findings) of the internal investigation.

IV. Other Developments in Whistleblower Cases

Although not addressed in the Report, there have been several significant judicial developments regarding the anti-retaliation provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Dodd-Frank significantly expands protections for whistleblowers and explicitly makes it illegal for a company to retaliate in any way against a whistleblower.21 The statute also contains a private cause of action for whistleblowers alleging retaliatory discharge or other discrimination22 and provides that retaliation can be criminal.23 However, thus far, courts have applied the anti-retaliation provisions of Dodd-Frank narrowly.

In Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, 33 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1837, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 96929 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2012), a federal district court in Texas held that the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provisions do not apply extraterritorially. All the alleged retaliatory conduct against the plaintiff, including negative reviews and a demotion, took place outside of the United States, as did the conduct about which the plaintiff reported. Under those circumstances, the court held that the Dodd-Frank Act protections were inapplicable because the protections were not intended to apply outside the United States. Additionally, the court stated that the plaintiff did not have a cause of action for retaliation under Dodd-Frank because (1) he reported the alleged FCPA violations internally, but never to the SEC; and (2) his internal disclosures were not required or protected by securities laws.

In Egan v. TradingScreen, Inc., 32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 418, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 96307 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2011), the court left open the possibility that internal reporting of a violation could qualify for protection under the anti-retaliation provisions, but found that the complaint as drafted did not adequately plead anti-retaliation. In Egan, the plaintiff made an internal report that the company's CEO was diverting company resources to another business that the CEO solely owned. An internal investigation supported the plaintiff's allegations. The CEO fired the plaintiff and did not provide him with the company's customary severance package. The plaintiff sued under the anti-retaliation provisions, and the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that, because the plaintiff did not report the violations to the SEC, but rather only internally, he could not be a protected whistleblower under the statute. The court held that to have a successful claim under the anti-retaliation provisions of the whistleblower provisions of Dodd-Frank, a plaintiff must either allege that his information was reported to the SEC, or that his disclosures fell under one of the four categories of disclosures delineated by 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii) that do not require such reporting-i.e., those under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Securities Exchange Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e), or other laws and regulations subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC. The court also held that a plaintiff can invoke the anti-retaliation protections of the Dodd-Frank Act if, rather than reporting personally and directly to the SEC, he or she does so jointly with another party, such as an investigating law firm, and can establish that a report to the SEC actually was made. The court gave the plaintiff narrow leave to amend his complaint to allege that a joint report was actually made to the SEC, because it held that the plaintiff could not establish that his internal disclosures met the requisites of any of the four categories delineated under prong (iii).

In Nollner v. Southern Baptist Convention, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 986 (M.D. Tenn. 2012), the court cited Egan in interpreting prong (iii) of the Dodd-Frank Act's anti-retaliation provisions to cover an employee who suffers an adverse employment action based on the employee's internal disclosure that is "required or protected" by the securities laws. In other words, an employee who reports internally, rather than directly to the Commission, may be protected under Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provisions so long as the employee's internal reporting is "required or protected" by the securities laws. To guide its analysis, the court identified four factors that an employee would need to prove to qualify for protection: (1) that the plaintiff was retaliated against for reporting a violation of the securities laws; (2) that the plaintiff reported that information to the SEC or to another entity, including internal reporting; (3) that the disclosure was made pursuant to a law, rule, or regulation subject to the SEC's jurisdiction; and (4) that the disclosure was "required or protected" by that law, rule, or regulation. The court ultimately denied the plaintiffs' anti-retaliation claim, holding that their internal disclosure of a potential FCPA violation was not "required or protected" by the securities laws because their employer was not an "issuer."

While companies must take care to ensure that they have thorough and clear anti-retaliation policies and guidelines regarding how to address whistleblower complaints, the cases interpreting these new provisions thus far suggest that courts will conduct thorough and searching fact-driven inquiries before allowing anti-retaliation claims to proceed.

1 For more information on the SEC's whistleblower bounty program and best practices for companies dealing with whistleblowers, please see Bradley J. Bondi, Jodi Avergun, Thomas Kuczajda & Steven D. Lofchie, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, "The Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions: Considerations for Effectively Preparing for and Responding to Whistleblowers," Business Fraud Alert, May 26, 2011,
2 U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Annual Report on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program Fiscal Year 8 (2012) [hereinafter "Annual Report"].
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Indeed, the amount pales in comparison to the whistleblower award of $104 million announced by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") on September 11, 2012, in connection with the government's investigation of tax evasion by a Swiss bank.  See David Kocieniewski, "Whistle-Blower Awarded $104 Million by I.R.S.," N.Y. Times, Sept. 11, 2012, available at  The whistleblower, who was involved in that offense and who served two and a half years in prison, assisted the IRS in collecting over $780 million in fines and penalties from the bank.  Id.  By contrast, the SEC's whistleblower bounty rules do not permit a whistleblower to recover a bounty where the whistleblower was convicted of a related crime.
6 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(2).
7 Annual Report at 8.
8 Id. at 4.
9  Id. at 4-5.
10 Id. at 5.  One hundred and seventy (170) TCRs received in Fiscal Year 2012, representing 5.7% of the total received, were submitted without any geographical information provided.  Annual Report at Appendix B: Whistleblower Tips Received by Location - United States and its Territories - Fiscal Year 2012.
11 Id. at Appendix B: Whistleblower Tips Received by Location - United States and its Territories - Fiscal Year 2012.
12 While the relatively high percentage of TCRs from Commonwealth countries may suggest a common culture that encourages whistleblowing activity, the number probably reflects the more mundane fact that residents of those countries are more likely to speak English, the language in which Form TCR and the Commission website are written.
13 The relatively high percentage of TCRs from China may be due to the SEC's significant focus on issuers from China, and in particular Chinese reverse merger companies listed on U.S. exchanges.  See, e.g., Press Release, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, SEC Charges N.Y.-Based Fund Manager and Others With Securities Laws Violations Related to Chinese Reverse Merger Company (July 30, 2012), available at; Press Release, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, SEC Charges China-Based Company and Others with Stock Manipulation (Apr. 11, 2012), available at; Press Release, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, SEC Approves New Rules to Toughen Listing Standards for Reverse Merger Companies (Nov. 9, 2011), available at; Luis A. Aguilar, Comm'r, U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, Facilitating Real Capital Formation (Apr. 4, 2011), available at; Scott Eden, "China Reverse Mergers Continue Wild Ride," The Street, June 23, 2011,
14 Annual Report at 6, 8-9.  Individuals have ninety (90) days to apply for an award based on the posted notices of covered action.
15 Id. at 9.
16 See U.S. Dep't of Justice & U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, A Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 56-66 (2012), available at (explaining that "[w]hen it comes to compliance, there is no one-size-fits-all program"); U.S. Sentencing Comm'n, Guidelines Manual, § 8B2 (Nov. 1, 2012), available at (describing qualities of an "effective compliance and ethics program" for purposes of reducing an organization's culpability score).
17 Peter B. Clark, Bradley J. Bondi & James A. Treanor, Corruption and the Arab Spring: Compliance Implications for International Companies, FCPA Report, July 25, 2012, available at
18 Lanny Breuer, Assistant Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Address at the American Conference Institute's 28th National Conference on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Nov. 16, 2012), available at (highlighting a financial services firm's "rigorous compliance program" as one reason why the Department of Justice declined to bring a case against the firm when its former employee conspired to circumvent its internal controls).
19 Emmanuel Olaoye, "Companies Will be Treated Favorably if They Report Violations First, SEC Enforcer Tells Lawyers," The Knowledge Effect, Oct. 24, 2012,; see also Press Release, SEC Charges Johnson & Johnson With Foreign Bribery, Apr. 7, 2011, available at (emphasizing the company's voluntary disclosures and "thorough internal investigation").
20 See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1).  Relief for an employee who successfully brings a retaliation action could include reinstatement, two times the amount of back pay owed, including interest, and compensation for costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorneys' fees. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(C).
21 Id. at § 78u-6(h)(1)(A).
22 Id. at § 78-6(h)(1)(B).
23 Under § 78u-6(h)(1)(A)(iii), an employer may not take a retaliatory action against an employee that makes a disclosure that is required or protected by 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e).  By taking such action, the employer could face fines, imprisonment, or both.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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 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:

- 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.