Recent Developments in Whistleblower Law from a Whistleblower Lawyer’s Perspective



Download 86.88 Kb.
Page1/5
Date20.04.2016
Size86.88 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5


Recent Developments in Whistleblower Law from a Whistleblower Lawyer’s Perspective



September 12, 2014


Jason Zuckerman1

Zuckerman Law

1629 K Street, NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006

jzuckerman@zuckermanlaw.com

(202) 262-8959 (v)

(202) 888-7555 (f)

www.zuckermanlaw.com

blog: www.whistleblower-protection-law.com



Introduction

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of whistleblower protection and reward laws. As many of these laws are relatively new, administrative tribunals and federal courts are grappling with key issues such as the scope of protected conduct, the burden of proof, the causation standard, the right to a jury trial, and the scope of available remedies. In general, recent decisions and other developments have been very favorable to whistleblowers. This paper surveys the following recent developments in whistleblower law from a whistleblower attorney’s perspective.






Sarbanes-Oxley Developments




Supreme Court Holds that SOX Protects Employees of Privately-Held Contractors and Subcontractors of Publicly-Traded Companies


Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, prohibits an “officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor or agency” of a publicly-traded company from retaliating against “an employee” for disclosing reasonably perceived potential or actual violations of the six enumerated categories of protected conduct in Section 806 (mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, any rule or regulation of the SEC, or any provision of federal law relating to fraud against shareholders).2 Until recently, there was a split of authority as to whether SOX protects employees of contractors providing services to public companies. In March 2014, the Supreme Court clarified that employees of contractors of public companies, including the attorneys and accountants that prepare the SEC filings of public companies, are covered under Section 806. See Lawson v. FMR, 134 S. Ct. 1158, 188 L. Ed. 2d 158 (2014).


Lawson worked for Fidelity Brokerage Services, a private subsidiary of the private company FMR Corp., which manages the day-to-day operations of publicly-traded Fidelity mutual funds.3 Id. at 1159. As is common in the mutual industry, the Fidelity investment company that files reports with the SEC (and is covered under Section 806) does not direct the personnel that operate the funds on a day-to-day basis. She brought a SOX claim alleging retaliation for disclosing securities violations, including improper retention of advisory fees. Id.  The district court held that Lawson is a covered employee under Section 806,4 but the First Circuit reversed, holding that SOX protects only employees of publicly-traded companies. See Lawson v. FMR LLC, 670 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2012), rev'd and remanded, 134 S. Ct. 1158, 188 L. Ed. 2d 158 (U.S. 2014).
The First Circuit relied in part on the title and caption of Section 806, both of which refer to “employee of publicly traded companies,” and to references in the legislative history suggesting that Section 806 was intended to protect employees of public companies. In addition, the First Circuit construed the plain meaning of Section 806 as prohibiting a contractor of a public company, such as FMR, from retaliating against an employee of a public company.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that SOX protects employees of contractors, subcontractors, and agents of public companies. Lawson, 134 S. Ct. at 1176. The majority relied primarily on the plain meaning of the statute, but also based its decision on an extensive examination of the legislative history and purpose of SOX. In particular, the Court focused on references in the legislative history to outside auditors and attorneys who suffered retaliation after blowing the whistle on accounting fraud at Enron, and concluded that protecting employees of contractors of public companies is essential to preventing another Enron.
A recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania suggests a limiting principle for SOX coverage of employees of contractors and subcontractors. See Gibney v. Evolution Mktg. Research, LLC, 2014 WL 2611213 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2014). Leo Gibney was employed by Evolution Marketing Research, a private consulting company that contracted its services out to many publicly-traded companies, including the pharmaceutical giant Merck. Id at *1. Evolution terminated Gibney’s employment after he reported to his supervisor that Evolution was fraudulently overbilling Merck for its services. Id. at *2. Gibney brought a SOX claim, and the district court held that even though Gibney was a protected employee and had reported securities fraud, SOX did not apply because it protects only disclosures aimed at preventing fraud perpetrated by, rather than against, publicly-traded companies. Id. The court expressed concern that permitting Gibney’s claim to proceed would transform SOX into a general retaliation statute that would apply to any private company that transacts business with a public company. Id. While Lawson will probably generate an increase in SOX claims, Gibney suggests that courts will likely adopt limiting principles that narrow the scope of SOX coverage for employees of contractors and subcontractors of public companies.

SOX Whistleblowers Obtain Large Verdicts

Although SOX was enacted twelve years ago, very few SOX claims have been tried before juries and until recently, SOX whistleblowers has not obtained large verdicts. This is due in part to the ambiguity that existed prior to 2010 as to whether SOX whistleblowers are entitled to a jury trial. The Dodd-Frank Act amendments to Section 806 of SOX clarify the right to try to a SOX whistleblower claim before a jury. See 18 U.S.C. 1514A(b)(2)(E) (“A party to an action brought under [Section 806] shall be entitled to trial by jury.”). Some recent verdicts suggest that SOX whistleblowers can obtain large verdicts, which may prompt more SOX whistleblowers to remove their claims from DOL to district court.


On March 5, 2014, a California jury awarded $6 million to Catherine Zulfer in her SOX whistleblower retaliation against Playboy, Inc. (“Playboy”).5 Zulfer, a former accounting executive, alleged that Playboy had terminated her in retaliation for raising concerns about executive bonuses to Playboy’s Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer. Zulfer v. Playboy Enterprises Inc., JVR No. 1405010041, 2014 WL 1891246 (C.D.Cal. 2014). She contended that she had been instructed by Playboy’s CFO to set aside $1 million for executive bonuses that had not been approved by the Board of Directors. Id. Zulfer refused to carry out this instruction, warning Playboy’s General Counsel that the bonuses were contrary to Playboy’s internal controls over financial reporting. Id. After Zulfer’s disclosure, the CFO retaliated by ostracizing Zulfer, excluding her from meetings, forcing her to take on additional duties, and eventually terminating her employment. Id. After a short trial, a jury awarded Zulfer $6 million in compensatory damages, and additionally ruled that Zulfer was entitled to punitive damages. Id. Zulfer and Playboy reached a settlement before a determination of punitive damages. The $6 million compensatory damages award represents the highest award to date in a SOX anti-retaliation case. Id.
And the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a SOX jury verdict awarding $2.2 million dollars, plus $2.4 million for attorneys’ fees, to two former in-house counsel. Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 549 F. App'x 611, 614 (9th Cir. 2013). The plaintiffs, both former in-house counsel at International Game Technology, alleged that they had been terminated in retaliation for disclosing shareholder fraud related to International’s merger with rival game company Anchor Gaming. Id. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that Anchor had withheld important information about its value, which caused International to commit shareholder fraud by paying above market value to acquire Anchor. Van Asdale v. Int'l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2009). When the plaintiffs discovered the issue, they brought their concerns about the potential fraud to their boss, who before the merger had served as Anchor’s general counsel. Id. at 993. International terminated both plaintiffs shortly thereafter. Id.
In addition, a former financial planner at Bancorp Investments, Inc. who alleged that his employment was terminated for disclosing trade unsuitability obtained a $250,000 jury verdict in the Eastern District of Kentucky in late 2013.6 Rhinehimer v. Bancorp Investment, Inc., 2013 WL 9235343 (E.D.Ky. Dec. 27, 2013).
Zulfer, Van Asdale, and Rhinehimer highlight the importance of the removal or “kick out” provision in SOX that authorizes SOX whistleblowers to remove their claims from the Department of Labor (“DOL”) to federal court for de novo review 180 days after filing the complaint with OSHA.  Although SOX does not authorize punitive damages, a SOX complainant in federal court can add other claims for which punitive damages can be recovered. For example, when Zulfer and the Van Asdales removed their SOX claims to district court, they added a common law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. While the ability to add claims can make a SOX claim more valuable after removal, that interest should be balanced against the increased time commitment and cost of litigating in the courts as opposed to the more streamlined DOL administrative process.
Prior to removing a SOX claim to federal court, plaintiff’s counsel should carefully assess whether the jurisdiction to which the claim would be removed has adopted or deferred to the current ARB’s broad construction of protected conduct as articulated in Sylvester v. Parexel Int’l, ARB 07-123, 2007-SOX-039, 2007-SOX-042 (ARB May 25, 2011). Not all circuits have adopted or deferred to Sylvester and instead may apply the decisions of the prior ARB narrowly construing SOX.




Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page