The Whistle Just Keeps Blowing: Recent Developments in SOX Whistleblower Claims
|
|
- Berniece Potter
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Whistle Just Keeps Blowing: Recent Developments in SOX Whistleblower Claims Connie N. Bertram 1 Proskauer Rose LLP Phone: (202) cbertram@proskauer.com Whistleblower Blog: In recent years, there has been a proliferation of new and expanded federal and state whistleblower protection and reward laws. One of the most notable of these laws is section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ( SOX ). Fueled by employee-friendly procedures and standards, a growing plaintiffs bar and recent staggering awards, there has been a steady increase in the number of section 806 claims filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ), the agency in the Department of Labor responsible for investigating and adjudicating SOX claims. It is more important than ever that the many employers covered by section 806 develop robust whistleblower policies and take SOX claims seriously. This article provides a summary of the most significant developments over the past twelve months concerning whistleblower claims under SOX. Supreme Court Holds that SOX Protects Employees of Privately-Held Contractors of Publicly-Traded Companies Section 806 of SOX, codified at 18 U.S.C. 1514A, prohibits retaliation against employees of public companies who report specified categories of unlawful conduct. Section 1514A(a) provides that a public company or officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent... of such company may not discriminate against an employee for engaging in a protected activity. A public company is defined in the statute as a company that registers securities under Section 12 or is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of In its March 2014 decision in Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S. Ct (2014) the Supreme Court extended Sarbanes-Oxley s whistleblower protections to cover not 1 Ms. Bertram is head of Proskauer s DC Labor & Employment practice, and co-head of the firm s Whistleblowing & Retaliation and Government Contractor Compliance Groups. Ms. Bertram concentrates her practice on whistleblower, government contracts, executive-level and employee mobility counseling, investigations and litigation. Ms. Bertram is co-editor of Proskauer s Whistleblower Defense blog, which provides the latest insights on whistleblower litigation and legislation. Ms. Bertram is the co-author of the ABA s Annual Update Concerning Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Claims, and presented at the ABA s 2014 Mid-Winter Program on SOX whistleblower issues. Ms. Bertram recently served on a panel discussing OSHA whistleblower developments with the Solicitor of Labor sponsored by the ABA. Beijing Boca Raton Boston Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles New Orleans New York Newark Paris São Paulo Washington, D.C.
2 only employees of publicly traded companies, but also employees of those companies contractors. In a 6-3 decision delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that SOX s whistleblower protection extends to employees of public companies contractors and subcontractors. Lawson v. FMR LLC, No. 12-3, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2014). Relying on the text of SOX s whistleblower provision, a majority of the Court ruled that to address the mischief to which Congress was responding, and earlier legislation Congress drew upon... the provision shelters employees of private contractors and subcontractors, just as it shelters employees of the public company served by the contractors and subcontractors. The majority asserted that its reading of the SOX whistleblower provision was consistent with the purpose of SOX, i.e., the protection of the investing public from fraud by public companies and preventing another Enron debacle. In its sweeping decision, the majority summarily cast aside any concerns regarding potentially limitless application of the statue. For example, the parties (as well as the Department of Labor) recognized a glaring inconsistency in the statute s application if employees of private contractors were covered. The parties and the Department of Labor agreed that employees of public company employees and officers should not be covered by the statute. As FMR pointed out, given that terms contractor and subcontractor appear in a series with the terms officer and employee, the various terms should be given consistent interpretations. The majority s answer to this conundrum was simply to eliminate it by taking the position that employees of public company employees and officers are also covered by the statute. The Court deflected concerns about its ruling back to Congress, noting that if the ruling opens the floodgates for such claims, Congress can easily fix the problem by amending 1514A to remove personal employees of public company officers and employees from the provision s reach. With this decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the universe of companies regulated by the SOX whistleblower provision from roughly 5,000 public companies to potentially 6 million private ones, including even the smallest Mom and Pop businesses. Indeed, the majority opinion even swept personal employees of public company officers and employees within the reach of SOX. The Court declined to adopt any of the various middle ground approaches that were presented to it during briefing and oral argument. This dramatic expansion of the statute s coverage is arguably contrary to the intended scope of SOX. Employers of every size and type will have to prepare themselves for potential SOX whistleblower retaliation claims, merely because they are a contractor or subcontractor of a publicly traded company. 2
3 The Second Circuit Adopts the ARB s Broad Interpretation of SOX Protected Conduct In May of 2011, the Administrative Review Board ( ARB ) issued a seminal decision in Sylvester v. Parexel, ARB , 2007-SOX-039, 2007-SOX-042 (ARB May 25, 2011), broadly construing SOX protected conduct. In Sylvester, the ARB reversed the Administrative Law Judge s ( ALJ ) dismissal of a complaint on grounds that complainants failed to allege that they had engaged in conduct protected by SOX. The ARB held that where the activity involves providing information to one s employer, the complainant need only show that he or she reasonably believes that the conduct complained of constitutes a violation of the laws listed in Section Further, the Board concluded that a whistleblower need not wait until the illegal conduct occurs to make a complaint, so long as the employee reasonably believes that the violation is likely to happen. Finally, the ARB clarified that a complaint does not have to allege shareholder fraud in order to be protected by SOX. The ARB stated that the legislative history of the law indicates that it was enacted not solely to address securities fraud, but corporate fraud generally. In issuing this decision, the ARB overruled prior authority that had required a complainant to establish that the activity or conduct for which protection is claimed definitively and specifically related to one or more of the laws listed under Section 806(a). Post-Sylvester, a number of federal courts have adopted the ARB s new standard. On August 8, 2014, for example, the Second Circuit applied the Sylvester standard, holding that the ARB s revised interpretation of Section 806, which focuses on the reasonable belief of the whistleblower, more closely aligns with the text of the statute and is persuasive. Nielsen v. AECOM Tech. Corp., 2014 WL (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2014). See also Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Administrative Review Bd., 717 F.3d 1121, 1132 n.7 (10th Cir. 2013) (noting that the ARB explicitly disavowed the definitive and specific evidentiary standard for Sarbanes Oxley complainants ); Wiest v. Lynch, 710 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2013) (holding that Sylvester is entitled to Chevron deference). Other Circuits, however, have continued to apply the pre-sylvester definitive and specific standard. In Riddle v. First Tennessee Bank, Nat. Ass n, 497 Fed. App x 588 (6th Cir. 2012) and Tides v. Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2011), the 6th Circuit and the 9th Circuit, respectfully, have both applied the definitive and specific standard without any mention of the Sylvester decision. Combining the Lawson decision with the ARB s expansive view of protected activity divorces completely a SOX whistleblower claim from SOX s stated purpose of encourag[ing] and protect[ing] employees who report fraudulent activity that can damage innocent investors in publicly traded companies. If the protected activity question ever reaches the Supreme Court, employers can only hope that the Court will recognize the need for some reasonable limitation on the applicability of the statute. 3
4 The Fifth Circuit Expands the Definition of Adverse Action On November 12, 2014, in Halliburton, Inc. v. Administrative Review Bd., 771 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2014), the Fifth Circuit affirmed an ARB s decision that disclosing the identity of a whistleblower may constitute an adverse action under Section 806 of SOX. The decision presents a number of risks for employers even when they are acting conscientiously and in good faith and is mandatory reading for in-house employment counsel and compliance professionals. Menendez filed a complaint with OSHA, alleging that Halliburton retaliated against him in violation of Section 806 by disclosing his identity as the whistleblower to his colleagues. An ALJ dismissed his complaint, reasoning that the disclosure was not an actionable adverse employment action. On appeal, the ARB ruled that the ALJ erred in determining that the disclosure was not an adverse action and remanded the action for additional findings. On remand, the ALJ ruled that Halliburton established its affirmative defense and demonstrated a legitimate business reason for disclosing Menendez s identity as a whistleblower. The ARB again reversed, ruling that Halliburton failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Halliburton s disclosure of Menendez s identity was dictated by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason unrelated to his protected activity. The Fifth Circuit upheld the ARB s ruling, finding that [i]t is inevitable that such a disclosure would result in ostracism. It noted that when the identity of a whistleblower is identified, the boss could be read as sending a warning, granting his implied imprimatur on differential treatment of the employee, or otherwise expressing a sort of discontent from on high. In its ruling, the Fifth Circuit embraced non-sox precedent recognizing that a whistleblower need not show that the employer s challenged action was driven by an improper motive. The Halliburton decision creates a Catch-22 for employers seeking in good faith to preserve evidence relevant to anticipated claims. In order to identify and preserve all evidence relevant to the whistleblower s underlying claims of fraud and his or her own retaliation claims, it is often necessary to identify the name of (or, in some instances, details concerning) the whistleblower and his claims. Given the risk this decision creates, employers need to be closely familiar with this ruling when crafting litigation holds for anticipated and pending claims, particular concerning current employees. Furthermore, the conclusion that a whistleblower need not show a retaliatory motive to establish a whistleblower retaliation claim is curious indeed. By definition, retaliation means a desire to exact retribution for particular conduct. The Fourth Circuit Hands Employers a Significant Victory on Their Causation Defense On May 12, 2014, the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on a SOX whistleblower claim in the former employer s favor, concluding that the alleged protected activity was not a contributing factor in the adverse action. Feldman v. Law Enforcement Assoc. Corp., 752 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2014). The plaintiffs filed suit under Section 806 of SOX 4
5 alleging they were discharged in retaliation for: (1) reporting to the board and the government about potentially illegal exports; (2) objecting to allegedly falsified board meeting minutes; (3) objecting to alleged leaks of information by outside directors; (4) objecting to and refusing to pay legal bills; and (5) notifying the government of suspected insider trading. The district court granted the company summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs failed to prove their alleged protected activities were a contributing factor in the decision to terminate them. In affirming the district court s decision, the Fourth Circuit concluded that there was insufficient evidence for the plaintiffs to establish that their protected conduct was a contributing factor. First, the court noted that there was an appreciable temporal gap between the alleged protected activity and terminations. Second, one of the plaintiffs engaged in conduct (described in the opinion as throw[ing] colleagues under the bus ) that constituted an intervening event that barred a finding of causation. Third, one of the plaintiffs could not establish causation because he was asked to stay at the company after he participated in the same alleged protected activities as the other plaintiffs. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs opinions regarding their own performance were not sufficient to create disputed issues of material fact, noting that the court cannot sit as a super-personnel department challenging the decisions of employers. This ruling is one of the few bright lights for covered employers in the recent rulings applying section 806. Experienced EEO counselors and litigators will note language in the decision consistent with the business judgment rule, a standard often used by employers to prevail on summary judgment in employment litigation. Although the stated legal standards may sound insurmountable, employers should continue to raise and support traditional theories and defenses in litigation before the ARB and federal courts. As this decision demonstrates, judges should be willing to grant summary judgment in situations where an employer can prove that it made a good faith, justified employment decision. Courts Expand the Scope of Damages Available Under SOX A prevailing SOX whistleblower can recover all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including reinstatement, back pay, attorney s fees, and costs. 18 U.S.C. 1514A(c). Although reinstatement is the preferred and presumptive remedy to make an employee whole, some ALJs have awarded front pay in lieu of reinstatement. See, e.g., Hagman v. Washington Mutual Bank, Inc., 2005-SOX-00073, at (ALJ Dec. 19, 2006). But, until recently, it was unclear whether federal district courts would be willing to award front pay. In Jones v. SouthPeak Interactive Corp., 986 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that front pay may be ordered in lieu of reinstatement, finding support for a front pay award under section 806 from the Department of Labor s November 3, 2011 Interim Final Rule. However, the court ultimately determined that front pay was not warranted under the facts of this case. The District Court also ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to emotional distress damages. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit joined the Fifth Circuit and Tenth Circuit, holding that emotional distress damages are available under SOX. Jones v. SouthPeak Interactive Corp. of Del., 777 5
6 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2015). The Court reasoned that SOX provides for all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including remedies not specifically enumerated in the statute. As with Title VII retaliation claims, there are ways an employer can mitigate emotional distress damages. The keys are to take the investigation seriously, maintain the confidentiality of the investigation wherever possible, and to make sure the process is transparent for the whistleblower. 2 2 Jones is also the first federal Circuit Court decision to find that a four-year statute of limitations applies to SOX whistleblower retaliation claims. As a consequence of this ruling, it is advisable for employers to collect and retain all evidence relevant to anticipated whistleblower claims for at least four years. In addition, employers should take steps to preserve the statements of and accessibility to key witnesses to any anticipated claim. 6
A Year For Whistleblower Rewards And Protections
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Year For Whistleblower Rewards And Protections Law360,
More informationRecent Developments in Whistleblower Retaliation Litigation
Recent Developments in Whistleblower Retaliation Litigation Jason Zuckerman Zuckerman Law Washington, D.C. (202) 262-8959 jzuckerman@zuckermanlaw.com www.zuckermanlaw.com www.whistleblower-protection-law.com
More informationSecond and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
H Reprinted with permission from the Employee Relations LAW JOURNAL Vol. 41, No. 4 Spring 2016 SPLIT CIRCUITS Second and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
More informationWhistleblower Law Update
Whistleblower Law Update Honorable J. Michelle Childs, US District Judge, Columbia SC Edward T. Ellis, Littler Shareholder, Philadelphia PA Alexis Ronickher, Katz, Marshall & Banks Partner, Washington,
More informationWhistleblowing in the Dodd- Frank Era: The Perfect Storm
Whistleblowing in the Dodd- Frank Era: The Perfect Storm February 2017 Renee Phillips Orrick (212) 506-5153 rphillips@orrick.com The Perfect Storm of Whistleblower Activity Massive statutory and regulatory
More informationWHISTLEBLOWER LAW DEVELOPMENTS Fifth Circuit Defines Whistleblower Narrowly Under Dodd-Frank Posted on July 18, 2013 by Renee Phillips and Mike Delikat On July 17, 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued the first
More informationPassing The Integrated Employer Test
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Passing The Integrated Employer Test Law360,
More informationDodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Dodd-Frank Act s Whistleblower Provisions Cover Persons Who Report Concerns to the SEC, Not Those Who Exclusively Report Internally. SUMMARY In Digital Realty Trust, Inc.
More informationCorporate Whistleblower Developments Mark Oakes Partner Fulbright & Jaworski LLP June 10, 2014
Corporate Whistleblower Developments Mark Oakes Partner Fulbright & Jaworski LLP June 10, 2014 Mark Oakes Partner Securities Litigation, Investigations, and SEC Enforcement Norton Rose Fulbright T: +1
More informationInterpretations And Implementation Of The Whistleblower Provisions Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Law
Interpretations And Implementation Of The Whistleblower Provisions Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Law Irvin B. Nathan and Yue-Han Chow A. History Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision 1. Drafted principally
More informationU.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 In the Matter of: ANTONIO ANDREWS, ARB CASE NO. 06-071 NIQUEL BARRON, COMPLAINANTS, ALJ CASE NOS.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-3 In the Supreme Court of the United States JACKIE HOSANG LAWSON AND JONATHAN M. ZANG, PETITIONERS v. FMR LLC, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More informationWhat the Supreme Court s Whistleblower Decision Means for Companies
Latham & Watkins White Collar Defense and Investigations, Securities Litigation & Professional Liability, and Supreme Court and Appellate Practices February 28, 2018 Number 2284 What the Supreme Court
More informationAppeals Court Strikes Down Labor Department s Interpretation Regarding Exempt Status of Mortgage Loan Officers
July 11, 2013 Practice Groups: Labor, Employment and Workplace Safety, Consumer Financial Services, and Global Government Solutions UPDATED TO REFLECT FILING OF PETITION FOR REHEARING Appeals Court Strikes
More informationThe Scope Of Protected Activity Under SOX
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Scope Of Protected Activity Under SOX
More informationEMPLOYMENT. Westlaw Journal Formerly Andrews Litigation Reporter
Westlaw Journal Formerly Andrews Litigation Reporter EMPLOYMENT Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 25, ISSUE 12 / JANUARY 11, 2011 Expert Analysis Raising the
More informationNo In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 12-3 In the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES --------------------------------------------------- JACKIE HOSANG LAWSON and JONATHAN M. ZANG Petitioners, v. FMR LLC, et al. Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------
More information2017 Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai Public Law Group 1
Employee as Whistleblower: How Do You Manage? CALPELRA Annual Conference, December 6, 2017 Presented By Jeff Sloan and Linda Ross How to Identify Whistleblowing Whistleblower Defined According to Merriam-Webster,
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
CASE NO. 15-1035 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit WILLIAM M. CONRAD, Plaintiff - Appellant v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant Appellee On Appeal From the United States District
More information15 - First Circuit Determines When IRS Willfully Violates Bankruptcy Discharge Order
15 - First Circuit Determines When IRS Willfully Violates Bankruptcy Discharge Order IRS v. Murphy, (CA 1, 6/7/2018) 121 AFTR 2d 2018-834 The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, affirming the district
More informationDOL Clarifies Burden-Shifting Framework For Whistleblowers
DOL Clarifies Burden-Shifting Framework For Whistleblowers Jason Zuckerman and Dallas Hammer The U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board s Sept. 30, 2016, decision in Palmer v. Canadian National
More informationCase 2:16-cv AB Document 106 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01757-AB Document 106 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANN MARIE REYHER, : Plaintiff, : : CIVIL ACTION v. : NO. 16-1757
More informationSTATES COURT OF APPEALS
TIMOTHY C. DIETZ, an individual, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 17, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff
More informationSarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection. whistleblowers against retaliation by employers for reporting or providing
Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection Sarbanes-Oxley, at 18 U.S.C. 1514A(a) 1, creates protection for whistleblowers against retaliation by employers for reporting or providing information on violations
More informationDEVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS IN SARBANES- OXLEY AND DODD-FRANK WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION
DEVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS IN SARBANES- OXLEY AND DODD-FRANK WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION 8th Annual ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law Conference Thursday, November 6, 2014 Jason Zuckerman Zuckerman Law
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-757 In the Supreme Court of the United States DOMICK NELSON, PETITIONER v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
More informationClient Update Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Dodd-Frank s Whistleblower Protections
1 Client Update Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Dodd-Frank s Whistleblower Protections The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 21, 2018 that the Dodd-Frank Act s anti-retaliation provision only protects
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Narrows Scope of Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Protections
February 22, 2018 U.S. Supreme Court Narrows Scope of Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Protections On February 21, 2018, in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split
More informationWHISTLEBLOWERS. Labor and Employment Briefing May 19, 2016 Robert E. Hauberg, Jr.
WHISTLEBLOWERS Labor and Employment Briefing May 19, 2016 Robert E. Hauberg, Jr. WHAT IS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER - Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub. L 101-12, 5 U.S.C. 1201 et
More informationEmployee Whistleblower Claims Under SOX: Preparing for New OSHA Enforcement Avoiding and Defending Worker Retaliation Claims
presents Employee Whistleblower Claims Under SOX: Preparing for New OSHA Enforcement Avoiding and Defending Worker Retaliation Claims A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A Today's
More informationWhistle Blowing. Raising Concerns
Whistle Blowing Raising Concerns 2-20 Executive Summary 1. This Whistle Blowing (the Policy ) is in furtherance of the Bank s desire to strengthen the Bank s system of integrity and the fight against corruption
More informationSEC Whistleblowing Program Post- Dodd-Frank: A Review for Internal Auditors. Marinilka B. Kimbro PhD
SEC Whistleblowing Program Post- Dodd-Frank: A Review for Internal Auditors Marinilka B. Kimbro PhD 1 2002 Persons of the Year Cynthia Cooper Worldcom Colleen Rowley FBI Sherron Watkins ENRON 2 Have you
More informationDefending Corporations and Individuals in Government Investigations Ethics & Whistleblower Issues In Investigations
Defending Corporations and Individuals in Government Investigations Ethics & Whistleblower Issues In Investigations Daniel J. Fetterman Mark P. Goodman Reid Figel Daniel Karson Patrick Pericak September
More informationCalifornia Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Narrow Restraint Exception
California Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Narrow Restraint Exception And Holds That Employment Non- Competition Agreements Are Invalid Unless They Fall Within Limited Statutory Exceptions On August
More informationCase 1:15-cv RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164
Case 1:15-cv-00753-RMB-AMD Document 31 Filed 06/28/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 164 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE [Dkt. No. 26] NORMARILY CRUZ, on behalf
More informationThe Supreme Court Requires Deference to Plan Administrator s Interpretation of ERISA Plan Notwithstanding Administrator s Prior Invalid Interpretation
To read the decision in Conkright v. Frommert, please click here. The Supreme Court Requires Deference to Plan Administrator s Interpretation of ERISA Plan Notwithstanding Administrator s Prior Invalid
More informationCFTC v. Wilson: Court Rules against CFTC in Commodities Manipulation Bench Trial
CFTC v. Wilson: Court Rules against CFTC in Commodities Manipulation Bench Trial Court Holds that Open-Market Bids and Offers Made with an Honest Desire to Trade Cannot Support Liability under the Commodity
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FELICIA D. DAVIS, for herself and for all others similarly situated, No. 07-56236 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. CV-07-02786-R PACIFIC
More informationWhen Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer?
When Trouble Knocks, Will Directors and Officers Policies Answer? Michael John Miguel Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP Los Angeles, California The limit of liability theory lies within the imagination of the
More informationTCPA Insurance Claim Issues Continue To Evolve
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com TCPA Insurance Claim Issues Continue To Evolve
More informationCoverage Issues Relating To Claims Under The False Claims Act
Coverage Issues Relating To Claims Under The False Claims Act May 2, 2017 Stephen A. Wood Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. 30 South Wacker, Ste 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 swood@ Direct Dial: 312-201-3400 Facsimile: 312-444-9027
More informationRecent Developments in Whistleblower Law from a Whistleblower Lawyer s Perspective
Recent Developments in Whistleblower Law from a Whistleblower Lawyer s Perspective Jason Zuckerman 1 Zuckerman Law 1629 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 jzuckerman@zuckermanlaw.com (202) 262-8959
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT REICHERT, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 06-15503 NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC., a D.C. No. foreign corporation doing
More informationBy: Mark A. Lies, II 1 and Craig B. Simonsen INTRODUCTION. One of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration s (OSHA s) most potent
131 South Dearborn Street Writer s direct phone (312) 460-5877 Writer s e-mail mlies@seyfarth.com Writer s direct fax (312) 460-7877 Suite 2400 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 460-5000 fax (312) 460-7000
More informationThe groundbreaking whistleblower protections
Corporate and Litigation Update NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protections: First Cases and Recent Developments The groundbreaking whistleblower protections included in the Sarbanes-Oxley
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ACTION RECYCLING INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HEATHER BLAIR, IRS Agent, Respondents-Appellees. No. 12-35338
More informationQ UPDATE EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS CASES OF INTEREST D&O FILINGS, SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS Q1 2018 UPDATE CASES OF INTEREST U.S. SUPREME COURT FINDS STATE COURTS RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER 1933 ACT CLAIMS STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF TCPA FOUND TO BE PENALTIES AND
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Case Nos. 04-2291 and 04-1801 (consolidated) RUBEN CARNERO, PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT, - v. - BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, DEFENDANT - APPELLEE.
More informationAlert. Fifth Circuit Orders Mandatory Subordination of Contractual Guaranty Claims. June 5, 2015
Alert Fifth Circuit Orders Mandatory Subordination of Contractual Guaranty Claims June 5, 2015 A creditor s guaranty claim arising from equity investments in a debtor s affiliate should be treated the
More informationCorporate Must Reads. Making sense of it all.
e-book March 2014 Corporate Must Reads. Making sense of it all. Table of contents U.S. Supreme Court extends whistleblower protection to employees of a public company s private contractors...3 SEC issues
More information2nd Proofs 8/24/2017. Whistleblower Protections of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Chapter 13.
Chapter 13 Whistleblower Protections of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 13:1 Introduction 13:2 Statute of Limitations 13:3 Who Is Covered? 13:3.1 Non-Federal Employer 13:3.2 Employees
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-3 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JACKIE HOSANG LAWSON and JONATHAN M. ZANG, v. Petitioners, FMR, LLC, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationPresentation follows
May 30, 2003 THE INCREASED NEED FOR INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS BY PUBLIC COMPANIES AND THEIR AUDIT COMMITTEES by Gerald E. Boltz Presented at the Rocky Mountain Securities Conference (May 30, 2003) Copyright
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BONNIE J. RUSICK, Claimant-Appellant, v. SLOAN D. GIBSON, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. 2013-7105 Appeal from the United
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
07-4074-cv Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments Inc. 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 4 5 6 7 August Term, 008 8 9 (Argued: August 4, 009 Decided: September 10, 009) 10 11 Docket No.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KELLY L. STEPHENSON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. 2012-3074 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board
More informationOSHA to Offer Alternative Dispute Resolution for Whistleblower Complaints
November 12, 2012 OSHA to Offer Alternative Dispute Resolution for Whistleblower Complaints Employers should evaluate whether new whistleblower complaints are eligible for the initiative, which provides
More informationERISA Causes of Action *
1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants
More informationTermination of Employment for Misconduct; Request for Public Comments Notice 99 27
Termination of Employment for Misconduct; Request for Public Comments Notice 99 27 SECTION I. PURPOSE Section 1203 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (the RRA ) provides
More informationNEXUS UGANDA Ltd. WHISTLE BLOWING POLICY OCTOBER 2015
NEXUS UGANDA Ltd. WHISTLE BLOWING POLICY OCTOBER 2015 Policy Review and Approval Page Institution NEXUS UGANDA Ltd. Version 1.0 Final Document Date 5. OCTOBER 2015 Issued By NEXUS UGANDA Ltd. Reviewed
More informationTHE ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU JONATHAN FOXX President and Managing Director Lenders Compliance Group, Inc.
THE ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU JONATHAN FOXX President and Managing Director Lenders Compliance Group, Inc. For several months, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
More informationFive Questions to Ask to Maximize D&O Insurance Coverage of FCPA Claims
Five Questions to Ask to Maximize D&O Insurance Coverage of FCPA Claims By Andrew M. Reidy, Joseph M. Saka and Ario Fazli Lowenstein Sandler Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to
More informationGibney v. Evolution Marketing Research, LLC
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 2016/17 VOLUME 61 2016/17 JUSTIN OFFERMANN Gibney v. Evolution Marketing Research, LLC 61 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 529 (2016 2017) ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Justin Offermann
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD. ALJ Case No FRS AMICUS BRIEF OF KALIJARVI, CHUZI, NEWMAN & FITCH, P.C.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD KENNETH PALMER, ARB No. 16-035 Complainant, ALJ Case No. 2014-FRS-00154 against, CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY/ ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY,
More informationCASE NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. SANDRA CLARK and RHONDA KNOOP,
CASE NO. 03-6393 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SANDRA CLARK and RHONDA KNOOP, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. and ELI BROCK, Defendants-Appellees. On
More informationSUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIMS UNDER THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT
SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIMS UNDER THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT MAY 5, 2005 The United States Supreme Court held in the case of Smith v. City of Jackson, 125 S. Ct. 1536
More informationEthical Issues for In-House Counsel Conducting Employee Interviews
Ethical Issues for In-House Counsel Conducting Employee Interviews 2016 ACC Houston Chapter Labor & Employment Practice Group Series Bob s Steak & Chop House September 21, 2016 Baker & McKenzie LLP is
More informationRecent Developments in Whistleblower Law
Recent Developments in Whistleblower Law Jason Zuckerman Dallas Hammer Zuckerman Law 1629 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 jzuckerman@zuckermanlaw.com (202) 262-8959 (v) (202) 888-7555 (f) https://www.zuckermanlaw.com
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1106 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, and Plaintiff - Appellee, Defendant Appellant, AMERICAN FEDERATION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term Docket No
- Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 01 Argued: October 0, 01 Decided: January, 01 Docket No. 1-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 - - - - - - - -
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ROBIN BETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-C-1161 MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant. DECISION AND
More informationMFA COMPLIANCE 2016: UNDERSTANDING INSURANCE AND LIABILITY: A FOCUS ON D&O, CYBERSECURITY AND POLICY REVIEWS
MFA COMPLIANCE 2016: UNDERSTANDING INSURANCE AND LIABILITY: A FOCUS ON D&O, CYBERSECURITY AND POLICY REVIEWS Presented by: Lynda A. Bennett Chair, Insurance Recovery Group LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 973.597.6338
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No x.
Case 1:18-cv-06448 Document 1 Filed 07/17/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No. 18-6448 ---------------------------------------------------------x VINCENT
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-3 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JACKIE HOSANG LAWSON AND JONATHAN M. ZANG, V. FMR LLC, ET AL., Petitioners, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for
More informationA-1 Capital Management LLC, a private
The Investment Lawyer Covering Legal and Regulatory Issues of Asset Management VOL. 21, NO. 6 JUNE 2014 Lawson v. FMR LLC: Supreme Court Holds that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Protects Employees of Private
More informationClinical and Administrative Policies and Procedures
Clinical and Administrative Policies and Procedures Purpose: Centerstone is committed to its role in preventing health care fraud and abuse and complying with applicable state and federal law related to
More informationWELCOME & INTRODUCTION
The Proposed Elimination of Arbitration Clauses Part of the Unraveling the Proposed Borrower Defense Rule Webinar Series Aug.-Sept. 2016 higher education practice WELCOME & INTRODUCTION Jeffrey R. Fink
More informationPage 1 of 6 Home > Publications > ABA Health esource > 2013-14 > March > State Entities and the False Claims Act State Entities and the False Claims Act Vol. 10 No. 7 Scott R. Grubman, Rogers & Hardin
More informationArticle. By Richard Painter, Douglas Dunham, and Ellen Quackenbos
Article [Ed. Note: The following is taken from the introduction of the upcoming article to be published in volume 20:1 of the Minnesota Journal of International Law] When Courts and Congress Don t Say
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-30849 Document: 00514799581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED January 17, 2019 NICOLE
More informationCase 1:05-cv RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00408-RAE Document 36 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NAYDA LOPEZ and BENJAMIN LOPEZ, Case No. 1:05-CV-408 Plaintiffs,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MORRIS SHELKOFSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-5083 Appeal from the
More informationSafeguarding. the Federal Workplace
U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Safeguarding Accountability, Integrity, and Fairness in the Federal Workplace Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association July 17, 2014 Mark Cohen, Principal
More informationMICHAEL A. LEE TOWN OF DENMARK. [ 1] Michael A. Lee appeals from a summary judgment entered by the
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2019 ME 54 Docket: Oxf-18-248 Argued: February 6, 2019 Decided: April 11, 2019 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM,
More informationCorporate Integrity Agreements can be the basis for a False Claims Act Case
Corporate Integrity Agreements can be the basis for a False Claims Act Case by Suzanne E. Durrell, Esq. Washington D.C. November 2014 Who should read this paper Presented by Atty. Suzanne E. Durrell at
More informationWhistleblower Claims on the Rise
Preventing Whistleblower Claims in the Automotive Industry Jeff Kopp 313-234-7140 jkopp@foley.com Felicia O Connor 313-234-7172 foconnor@foley.com Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a
More informationJerman And Its Effects On the Collection Industry
Jerman And Its Effects On the Collection Industry Presented By: Alan H. Weinberg, Managing Partner U.S. Supreme Court Only two Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) Cases have been before the United
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-2382 Document: 71 Filed: 08/08/2017 Page: 1 No. 15-2382 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JACK REESE; FRANCES ELAINE PIDDE; JAMES CICHANOFSKY; ROGER MILLER; GEORGE NOWLIN,
More informationNOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 03-4459 KIMBERLY BRUUN; ASHLEY R. EMANIS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Turner et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 DAMON G. TURNER and KRISTINE A. TURNER, v. Plaintiffs, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
More informationTenth Circuit Affirms Ruling Allowing SEC to Bring Securities Fraud Claims Over Certain Foreign Transactions
Tenth Circuit Affirms Ruling Allowing SEC to Bring Securities Fraud Claims Over Certain Foreign Transactions January 30, 2019 Last week, in SEC v. Scoville, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
More informationCorporate Litigation: Enforceability of Board-Adopted Forum Selection Bylaws
Corporate Litigation: Enforceability of Board-Adopted Forum Selection Bylaws Joseph M. McLaughlin * Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP October 9, 2014 Last year, the Delaware Court of Chancery in Boilermakers
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA JOHN RANNIGAN, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) Case No. 1:08-CV-256 v. ) ) Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE ) FOR
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER 2a. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant, v. OCAHO Case No. 11B00111 MAR-JAC
More informationOrder Code RS22170 June 20, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Disparate Impact Cl
Order Code RS22170 June 20, 2005 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Disparate Impact Claims: An Analysis of the Supreme Court s Ruling in
More informationU.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 In the Matter of: MATTHEW VANNOY, ARB CASE NO. 09-118 COMPLAINANT, ALJ CASE NO. 2008-SOX-064 v.
More informationDeborah R. Bauer and Diane G. Wright, on behalf of themselves and those
274 Ga. App. 381 A05A0455. ADVANCEPCS et al. v. BAUER et al. PHIPPS, Judge. Deborah R. Bauer and Diane G. Wright, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
More informationCase 2:18-cv RMP ECF No. 27 filed 10/23/18 PageID.273 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.
Case :-cv-00-rmp ECF No. filed // PageID. Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Oct, SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
More informationNew Government Theories of Civil Liability for Off-Label Promotion: Are They Legitimate?
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. New Government Theories of Civil Liability for Off-Label Promotion:
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1408 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. QUALITY STORES, INC., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More information