Total Articles: 17
DOL Review Board Re-Affirms SOX Does Not Apply Outside U.S.
A non-U.S. citizen employee of a non-U.S. company lacked rights under the employee protection provisions of Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”), the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board has determined in Villanueva v. Core Laboratories, NV.
DOL Confirms SOX Whistleblower Protections Do Not Apply Extraterritorially
At a time when the extraterritorial reach of U.S. regulations seems to grow at a rate faster than the economy, U.S. employers breathed a sigh of relief when the U.S. Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) confirmed by a 3-2 vote that the whistleblower provision of Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) has no extraterritorial application.
Seventh Circuit Revives Whistleblower Claim Brought Under RICO
A new federal court ruling creates an avenue for employees to rely on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) to pursue retaliation claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
New SOX Decision by the U.S. Department of Labor's ARB Expands Whistleblower Protection Yet Again, Including Protection for Theft from Employer's Computer System
In the case of an employee who admitted to stealing personal identifying information of coworkers and confidential business documents from the company computer system, the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) held recently that: (1) theft of confidential personal and corporate information may be protected activity, depending on the circumstances surrounding the theft; (2) the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's ("SOX") anti-retaliation provision protects employees who make disclosures to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program; and (3) an employee need not allege shareholder fraud for SOX protection to apply.
DOL Administrative Review Board Holds that Breach of a SOX Complainant's Confidentiality Is Retaliation Under SOX
In a decision falling somewhere between surprising and alarming, the U.S. Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) held recently that section 806 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, protects a whistleblower against a breach of the confidentiality obligation in the internal reporting system of a publicly traded company. The decision, Menendez v. Halliburton, Inc., ARB Case Nos. 09-002 and 09-003 (Sept. 13, 2011), is surprising because the ARB expressly held that the words "in the terms and conditions of employment" that appear in section 806 to describe the scope of prohibited retaliation are "not significantly limiting words and should be construed broadly." That is, the presumed application of SOX to employment-based retaliation only may no longer be accurate. The sweeping language of the decision is alarming because it goes beyond the U.S. Supreme Court's retaliation threshold articulated in Burlington Northern v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), to erase all standards for measuring retaliatory adverse actions except "non-triviality." In light of Menendez, employers must be more careful than ever before taking any actions – employment or otherwise – in the course of a whistleblower complaint situation, because they might later be deemed retaliatory.
No Protection to Employees Who Disclose Employer Wrongdoing to the Media
A federal appeals court has ruled that anti-retaliation provision found in the corporate governance law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX") does not protect employees who disclose potential legal violations to the media. In the case of Tides v. Boeing Company, two Boeing internal auditors were fired after admitting that they provided internal company information to a newspaper reporter. They later sued, claiming that their termination was illegal.
ARB Needs Your Help on SOX Coverage of Subsidiaries.
Well, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but the Administrative Review Board, which gets the final appellate say at the administrative level of Sarbanes Oxley claims has asked the Assistant Secretary of OSHA and the SEC, and it appears other amici, to submit briefs addressing four specific questions:
Ninth Circuit Permits In-House Counsel to Proceed with SOX Whistleblower Claims.
The Ninth Circuit recently issued its first decision addressing the substantive requirements necessary to establish a claim under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). See Van Asdale v. International Game Technology (9th Cir. August 13, 2009). In overturning the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the employer, the Ninth Circuit relied on the text of the statute and the Department of Labor's (DOL) regulations interpreting the statute.
Anti-Retaliation Law: Sarbox Whistleblowers.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, sometimes called Sarbox or SOX, is a federal law enacted in 2002, as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including Enron and WorldCom. Sarbox set new or enhanced standards for public company boards, management and their public accounting firms. It does not apply to privately held companies. The act contains a number of provisions ranging from additional corporate board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law.
SARBANES-OXLEYS WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION EXPLAINED.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) is a federal law. Congress passed it on July 30, 2002, in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals. SOX, among other things, created whistleblower protection for any employee who reports that a publicly-traded company subject to SEC regulations has engaged in any of a number of fraudulent activities.
Although introduced with great fanfare, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just recently issued its first opinion analyzing the substantive requirements necessary to establish a claim under the Acts whistleblower-protection provisions. In Van Arsdale v. International Game Technology, decided on August 13, 2009, the Court held whistleblowers must show only that they called attention to what they believed was fraud to sue their employers for wrongful termination under SOX.
Sarbanes-Oxleys 90-Day Statute of Limitations Not Triggered By Conditional Firing.
An employee alleging a violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) must file a complaint within 90 days from the date of that alleged violation. That 90-day period begins to run from the date on which the complainant knows or reasonably should know that the complained-of act has occurred. In whistleblower cases under SOX, the 90-day statute of limitations runs from the date on which the employee receives final, definitive, and unequivocal notice of an adverse employment decision. As defined in SOX, the term unequivocal means that the notice is not ambiguous, and is free from misleading possibilities.
Awful New Whistleblower Law Affects Huge Swath of Employers.
With almost no fanfare, Congress has stomped and gouged employers again. It has passed a new law that will affect a significant proportion of the American economy and create new "rights" (translation: opportunities to sue) for employees. Called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Safety Improvement Act), the law provides broad protections to employees of manufacturers, private labelers, distributors, and retailers, who make complaints relating to consumer product safety.
The Critical Role Of HR In Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance.
Human Resources managers should never underestimate the importance of their role in Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Too often, publicly-traded companies focus their Sarbanes-Oxley compliance efforts on financial reporting only, i.e., as a function of the Accounting and Legal departments. But the full participation of Human Resources can be critical in the corporation's efforts to comply with SOX.
DOL Clarifies Protected Activity in Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Cases.
In an important decision helping to define the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) whistleblower provisions, the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) has reversed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), finding that an airline employee did not engage in protected activity under SOX when she complained to her employer about what the ARB described as how the company spends its money or its ability to collect a debt. See Platone v. FLYi, ARB Case. No. 04-153. The ARBs decision provides some much needed guidance regarding what constitutes protected activity under SOX.
Whistleblower Wins Reinstatement and Money Damages (pdf).
On February 15, 2005, a U.S. Department of Labor administrative law judge (ALJ) ordered
Cardinal Bankshares Corporation to reinstate its former CFO, David Welch, even though the
companys CEO and board of directors strongly mistrusted and disliked Welch and had
already hired another CFO to replace Welch. The ALJ also ordered Cardinal to pay Welch
$65,000 in back pay and special damages and $108,000 for attorneys fees.
Sarbanes-Oxley: lessons for private employers.
Imagine that you work for a private, family-run business your familys business. Lets picture you as the bookkeeper and your husband (fond of red suits and ever reluctant to trim his long white beard) as the master toy craftsman and sole delivery person. With a few good hands, all of whom are very small (you provide reasonable accommodations so they can do their jobs) and like to wear funny hats and shoes (nothing obscene or violating your grooming policy hard to complain since you allow the beard), your business is by all measures successful.
DOL Adopts Interim Final Rule Implementing Whistleblower Protection Provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley Act [PDF File, p10].
The proposed regulations are to be effective on the first day of the first plan year that begins on or after January 1, 2004. However, plan sponsors should make changes now to include the new tax credit information and cease using the 1986 model notice (if they have not already done so).
