Whistleblower protections in securities law
📘 I. Overview of Whistleblower Protections in Securities Law
✅ Key Legal Frameworks:
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010)
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended)
SEC Whistleblower Program (Rule 21F)
⚖️ 1. Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) §806
Provides anti-retaliation protections to employees of publicly traded companies who report:
Mail, wire, bank, or securities fraud
Violations of SEC rules
Violations of federal laws related to fraud
Procedural Note: SOX whistleblowers must file with the Department of Labor (DOL) within 180 days of the alleged retaliation.
⚖️ 2. Dodd-Frank Act §922
Created an expansive SEC Whistleblower Program, which includes:
Monetary rewards (10–30%) for original information that leads to successful SEC enforcement.
Anti-retaliation provisions (broader than SOX) that allow direct filing in federal court.
No requirement to report internally first.
🧾 II. Key Case Law – More than Five Detailed Cases
1. Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers (2018)
Citation: 583 U.S. ___
Issue: Does Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision protect employees who report only internally, not to the SEC?
Facts:
Somers, a VP at Digital Realty, was fired after reporting internal fraud. He did not report to the SEC.
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation protections only apply to those who report to the SEC.
Internal reports alone are not protected under Dodd-Frank.
Significance:
Narrowed Dodd-Frank protections.
Encouraged employees to report externally to the SEC to gain protection.
Highlighted the difference between SOX (protects internal reporting) and Dodd-Frank (requires SEC reporting).
2. Lawson v. FMR LLC (2014)
Citation: 571 U.S. 429
Issue: Does SOX protect employees of private contractors working for public companies?
Facts:
Two employees of private investment advisors to Fidelity mutual funds claimed retaliation after reporting fraud.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that SOX protects employees of contractors and subcontractors of public companies.
Protection is not limited to direct employees of the public company.
Significance:
Greatly expanded SOX whistleblower coverage.
Recognized the role of outsourced compliance professionals and their vulnerability.
3. Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C. (2013)
Citation: 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013)
Issue: Can an employee who only reports internally (not to the SEC) claim Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection?
Facts:
Asadi was terminated after reporting FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) violations internally.
Holding:
The 5th Circuit held that “whistleblower” under Dodd-Frank only includes those who report to the SEC.
Internal reports are not protected under Dodd-Frank.
Significance:
Foreshadowed Digital Realty’s Supreme Court ruling.
Reinforced the idea that legal definitions matter, especially in whistleblower statutes.
4. Bussing v. COR Clearing, LLC (8th Cir., 2017)
Citation: 851 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2017)
Issue: Whether internal reporting qualifies for protection under SOX.
Facts:
Bussing investigated internal fraud at a broker-dealer firm and was terminated.
Holding:
The 8th Circuit ruled that internal reporting to supervisors or compliance teams is protected under SOX.
It also rejected the employer’s attempt to apply the Digital Realty logic to SOX.
Significance:
Differentiated SOX from Dodd-Frank.
Affirmed that internal reports remain protected under SOX even if not sent to the SEC.
5. Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (2017)
Citation: U.S. District Court, N.D. California
Issue: Can in-house counsel act as a whistleblower under SOX?
Facts:
Wadler, General Counsel at Bio-Rad, was fired after reporting FCPA violations internally. He sued under SOX.
Holding:
Jury awarded over $11 million (including punitive damages).
Court found SOX applied even to in-house attorneys, provided they acted legally and ethically.
Significance:
Recognized legal professionals as whistleblowers.
Demonstrated high damages potential under SOX for retaliation.
Opened the door for other compliance/legal personnel to seek protection.
6. Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp. (2012)
Citation: 3 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D. Conn. 2012)
Issue: Whether Dodd-Frank allows a private cause of action for retaliation.
Facts:
Kramer alleged he was fired for objecting to improper financial disclosures, without reporting to the SEC.
Holding:
The court initially allowed the case under Dodd-Frank, but this approach was later overturned by Digital Realty.
Significance:
Earlier example of how courts diverged on interpretation of whistleblower definitions pre-Digital Realty.
Illustrates evolving judicial landscape before Supreme Court clarification.
7. Ziebell v. Foxx (2016)
Citation: U.S. District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Issue: Retaliation after employee reports to Inspector General (IG)
Facts:
Ziebell, a DOT employee, was demoted after making protected disclosures to the IG.
Holding:
Court found retaliation in violation of Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, though not Dodd-Frank directly.
Significance:
While not a securities-specific case, it illustrates interplay between different whistleblower laws and how reporting channels matter.
🧾 III. Key Differences Between SOX and Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections
| Feature | SOX | Dodd-Frank |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting Required To | Internal (supervisor, audit, etc.) | SEC (external reporting) |
| Time Limit to File | 180 days with OSHA (DOL) | 6 years in federal court |
| Relief | Reinstatement, back pay, attorney fees | Same + potential monetary award (10–30%) |
| Covers Employees of | Public companies and their contractors | Public companies |
| Legal Action Filed In | Department of Labor first, then court | Directly in federal court |
✅ IV. Conclusion
Whistleblower protections in U.S. securities law have become robust but complex, due to differences between SOX and Dodd-Frank and evolving court rulings. These cases establish that:
Where and how you report matters for legal protection.
Internal reporting is protected under SOX but not under Dodd-Frank.
Courts strictly interpret statutory definitions (e.g., "whistleblower").
Even in-house counsel and compliance officers may be protected.
Some statutes offer financial incentives while others focus on anti-retaliation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments