Dodd-Frank: SEC Whistleblower Facelift

Thinking of blowing the whistle on securities fraud?  Thanks to the  Dodd-Frank Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 (H.R. 4173), it now makes financial sense to consider it.

Securities whistleblowers may not have much company in cheering H.R. 4173 but Section 922 is a major improvement over the largely non-functional anti-retaliation provisions of the old Sarbanes-Oxley § 806.

For readers familiar with the somewhat comparable False Claims Act (a.k.a. “FCA”), in some respects Section 922 is nearly identical.  In others, it differs significantly.  In theory at least, both statutes offer whistleblowers potentially handsome financial rewards for bringing forward “original information” about fraud.  The awards generally range between 15 and 30 percent under the FCA (10-30 percent under § 922)  of what the government collects as a result of the whistleblower’s disclosures.  The FCA seeks to protect government funds from unscrupulous contractors and tax cheats.  In contrast, Section 922 purports to shield investors from securities fraud.  Other major points of comparison and divergence follow.

Size Matters

Section 922 makes awards only in cases where the “monetary sanctions” collected from the defendant exceed $1,000,000.  In contrast, there is no statutory floor on FCA claims although practically speaking each U.S. attorney’s office has its own threshold.  There are just too many FCA cases and too few assistant U.S. attorneys to follow them all.  Some won’t consider a case alleging less than $1,000,000 in “single damages”.  Others will jump at $500K.  Local context can loom large.

Section 922 excludes more whistleblowers

Oddly enough, if you gain the case information through the performance of an audit of financial statements required under the securities laws and, for you in your position, submission of the information to the SEC would be contrary to the requirements of section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j-1), forget about it.*  You can’t be an SEC whistleblower.  In this, you’re not alone.  The same exclusion applies to to “any whistleblower who is, or was at the time the whistleblower acquired the original information submitted to the Commission, a member, officer, or employee of (i) an appropriate regulatory agency; (ii) the Department of Justice; (iii) a self-regulatory organization; (iv) the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; or (v) a law enforcement organization.”

Section 922 offers no private cause of action

Unlike the FCA which authorizes plaintiffs called “relators” to sue even if the government decides not to, under § 922 only the government can pursue a securities fraud claim.  If the SEC chooses not to pursue a whistleblower case, the whistleblower is pretty much out of options.  To place this in practical context, not even Harry Markopolos — with all of his data and analysis — could force his Bernie Madoff case into court if the SEC didn’t want to go.

“Original information” is broader under Section 922

While the term “original information” is not used in the FCA, the FCA also makes awards only for the provision of new information.  That said, Section 922’s formulation of “original information” appears to be more expansive than that of the FCA.

Unlike the FCA, Section 922 includes within its domain of “original information” not only bare “knowledge” but also “analysis” provided by a whistleblower.  This should be seen as significantly expanding the “original information” perimeter to include private analysis of publicly available data like that which enabled Harry Markopolos to detect the Madoff fraud long before the SEC did.  While it is possible that an FCA whistleblower may have won a settlement on the basis of such analysis alone, I am not currently aware of any such case.

On the flip side, Section 922 excludes from permissible “original information” information “exclusively derived from an allegation made in a judicial or administrative hearing, in a governmental report (as opposed to federal government, in the FCA), hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the whistleblower is a source of the information.  The phrases “exclusively derived” and “a source” are exclusive to Section 922 — they do not appear in the FCA.

Arguably, the net impact of “government,” “exclusively derived,” and “a source” — together with the addition of the word “analysis” — is to expand the pool of “original information” for SEC whistleblowers beyond than that available to FCA relators.

Section 922 will be administered by a dedicated SEC office

FCA relators should be so lucky.  FCA claims are typically administered and enforced by Main Justice DOJ Civil Division attorneys or by local Assistant US Attorneys who have lots of responsibilities in addition to FCA cases.  The focus offered by a special SEC whistleblower office should give SEC whistleblowers a leg up assuming that it is properly staffed and managed.

SEC determines Section 922 awards

Unlike the FCA where the district courts have authority to approve FCA settlements and associated whistleblower awards, Section 922 grants the SEC complete discretion to identify award recipients and set largely unappealable award amounts.

Act § 21F(c)(1)(B) directs the SEC to “take into consideration” a specific list of four factors in making awards.**  However, the House-Senate Conference Committee’s softening of the Senate version language of § 21F(c)(1)(B) from “shall account for” to “shall take in consideration” signals that the SEC can weight and apply these factors almost at will.  Act § 21F(f) deprives district courts of any supervisory role, sending award appeals directly to the circuit courts which must review SEC decisions in accordance with Section 706 of the federal Administrative Procedure Act.  As a practical matter, SEC decisions on awards will be very difficult to overturn on appeal.

Readers may judge for themselves what awards whistleblowers should expect in light of the fact that awards will be paid out of the same SEC Investor Protection Fund from which the SEC’s OIG will fund its activities.

Bottom line: Dodd-Frank offers pros and cons for SEC whistleblowers.  While it isn’t nearly as robust as the FCA, Dodd-Frank is a major improvement over Sarbanes-Oxley.  If you’re thinking of blowing the SEC whistle and can’t wait to get started, give us a call.  We can help you blow with greater velocity and focus.

# # #

* The emphasis on “and” is mine.  The contextual meaning of the phrase “contrary to the requirements of section 10A” is anybody’s guess at this point.  This kind of legislative loose end keeps litigators employed and drives auditors — who crave definition and bright lines — to distraction.

** The § 21F(c)(1)(B) award-amount factors are as follows:

1. the significance of the information provided by the whistleblower to the success of the action;

2. the degree of assistance provided by the whistleblower and any legal representative of the whistleblower in a covered judicial or adrninistrative action;

3. the SEC’s programmatic interest in deterring violations of the securities law by making awards to WBs; and

4. such additional relevant factors as the Commission may establish by rule or regulation.

*Cross-posted at Whistleblower Central.

SEC should cease regulatory fraud, quit issuing SABs

From the War on Terror to the War on Wall Street, due process violations by government agencies are proliferating like nuclear weapons. Facilitated by widespread ignorance among Americans — general public, financial professions, and the federal judiciary — the pattern of abuse threatens not only American markets but the very foundations of American life.

In April 2009, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission took another bite out of due process by issuing without public notice or input a “Staff Accounting Bulletin” or “SAB” for the first time since December of 2007. Continue reading

Raising capital in a down market? Beware securities law traps!

Raising start-up capital is a tough job even in good economic times.  These days, with credit so scarce, it can seem nearly impossible.  Unfortunately, when entrepreneurs want to get things done “in the worst way,” they sometimes run out of patience and do just that.  Raising capital in 21st century America is a bit like taking a road trip across Iraq. The road is strewn with booby traps. Continue reading

Everybody cheer! KBR & Halliburton settle bribery case . . . what about Bernie Madoff?

Yesterday, the SEC announced that KBR and Halliburton have settled their Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case with the SEC and Department of Justice for total fines and disgorgement of $579 million.   The underlying bribes apparently totalled far less: a mere $5 million paid to a Nigerian political party for a train contract.

At this point, a voice inside my head keeps screaming, “What about Madoff?!”  The FCPA violation alleged here is essentially a victimless crime, functionally a penny-ante “bailout” of a few Nigerians that actually helped the companies’ shareholders.  Yet, this SEC complaint is undersigned by no fewer than six SEC attorneys who, judging from the factual timeline, were busily engaged on this case — together with uncounted DOJ counterparts — over at least the past five years while Bernie Madoff made off with $30-50 billion belonging to investorsContinue reading

Mary L. Schapiro Obama’s pick to chair SEC?

CNN is reporting this evening that two Obama team insiders have said President-Elect Obama plans to tap Mary L. Schapiro as incoming SEC Chair.  Schapiro certainly has a much stronger resume for the job than current SEC Chair Christopher Cox, having been appointed SEC Commissioner first by President Reagan in 1988.

It’s an interesting pick that should make financial markets insiders happy.  Schapiro has the disctinction of having been appointed to various roles by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush.  This would make Obama’s administration her fifth consecutive call to serve.

Currently, Schapiro is CEO of FINRA.  Insights into her regulatory philosophy and thought processes can be gleaned from a speech she gave at Fordham University, in January 2002. Continue reading

Bernie Madoff, James Madison and public virtue

James Madison saw Bernie Madoff 220 years in advance. That so many supposedly bright people were duped by Madoff testifies to their ignorance or disregard of history and to what may be an approaching nadir in the cycle of American public virtue.

At the Convention called by the Commonwealth of Virginia to debate the newly proposed U.S. Constitution, Madison declared, in support of the Constitution:

But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. Continue reading

Memo to Congress: SEC already has power to abolish mark-to-market

Fair value accounting is coming under fire, now, from various directions including Newt Gingrich and a number of banks and economists. Apparently, some banks (though not all) think it unfair that Wachovia should be bought for $2.16 billion when it’s balance sheet reports $75.1 billion in net assets. Continue reading

D.C. Circuit Court: McCain’s right, the President can “fire” the SEC Chairman

While I disagree with John McCain that Chris Cox should be “fired” over recent market turbulence, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal agrees with McCain that the SEC chair can be dismissed by the President of the United States.  An unattributed ABCNews blog is reporting otherwise on the authority of an unnamed source. Continue reading

McCain wrong to call for firing SEC chairman Cox

John McCain has lost his marbles or his principles. The guy who so courageously faced down public criticism of the Iraq War “surge” is now just another member of a pack irresponsibly yammering for some kind of vengeance against someone over the sub-prime mortgage and stock market mess.  Simply pathetic.  Reuters reports: Continue reading

T.J. Rodgers: FASB regulates to death wealth-creating companies

U.S. accounting standards setting is truly out of control. Despite the constant drumbeat from special interests — mostly analysts and retirement plans who demand ever-increasing complexity and sophistication in accounting standards — what we get in the form of new accounting pronouncements in this country is largely indecipherable geek-speak. Continue reading