Image of Can tax whistleblowers remain anonymous?

Can tax whistleblowers remain anonymous?

Image of False Claims Act and NDAA Whistleblower Protection FAQs

 

Whistleblower Attorney’s Guide to False Claims Act and NDAA Whistleblower Protection Laws

The False Claims Act (“FCA”) protects employees, contractors, and agents who engage in protected activity from retaliation in the form of their being “discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1).

The whistleblower protection provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) protect whistleblowers who report waste, fraud or abuse.

If you have suffered retaliation for whistleblowing, contact our experienced whistleblower lawyers today by calling us at 202-262-8959 or clicking here.

Does the False Claims Act protect whistleblowers against retaliation?

Yes, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) protects employees, contractors, and agents who engage in protected activity from retaliation in the form of their being “discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1).

False Claims Act Whistleblower Protection Law

What is protected whistleblowing or protected conduct under the False Claims Act Retaliation Provision?

The FCA protects:

  1. “lawful acts . . . in furtherance of an action under [the FCA]”; and
  2. “other efforts to stop 1 or more [FCA] violations.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1).

Recent cases have interpreted this protected activity to include:

  • internal reporting of fraudulent activity to a supervisor;
  • steps taken in furtherance of a potential or actual qui tam action;
  • efforts to remedy fraudulent activity or to stop an FCA violation; and
  • refusal to violate the False Claims Act.

Does the False Claims Act anti-retaliation law protect efforts to stop a government contractor from defrauding the government?

Yes: the FCA protects whistleblowers who try to prevent one or more violations of the FCA, as long as they have an objectively reasonable belief that their employer is violating, or will soon violate, the FCA. Case law has clarified that efforts to stop an FCA violation are protected even if they are not meant to further a qui tam claim.  For example, refusing to falsify documentation that will be submitted to Medicare is protected.

Is False Claims Act Whistleblower Protection Limited to Disclosures About the Whistleblower’s Employer?

No.  The whistleblower protection provision of the False Claims Act (FCA) protects “lawful acts done by the employee, contractor, agent or associated others in furtherance of an action under [the FCA] or other efforts to stop 1 or more violations of [the FCA].”

Recently the Fourth Circuit held in O’Hara v. Nika Technologies, Inc., 2017— F.3d —-2017 WL 6542675 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 2017):

The plain language of § 3730(h) reveals that the statute does not condition protection on the employment relationship between a whistleblower and the subject of his disclosures. Section 3730(h) protects a whistleblower from retaliation for “lawful acts done … in furtherance of an action under this section.” 31U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1). The phrase “an action under this section” refers to a lawsuit under §3730(b), which in turn states that “[a] person may bring a civil action for a violation of [the FCA].” Id. §3730(b)(1). Therefore, § 3730(h) protects lawful acts in furtherance of an FCA action. This language indicates that protection under the statute depends on the type of conduct that the whistleblower discloses—i.e., a violation of the FCA—rather than the whistleblower’s relationship to the subject of his disclosures.

Does the False Claims Act retaliation law protect internal reporting to a government contractor or grantee?

Yes, case law has clarified that the act of internal reporting itself suffices as both the effort to stop the FCA violation and the notice to the employer that the employee is engaging in protected activity.

Does the False Claims Act prohibit retaliation against an employee for the employee’s refusal to participate in a fraudulent scheme?

Yes.  As the Second Circuit held in Fabula v. American Medical Response, Inc., an employee’s refusal to sign fraudulent reimbursement documentation constitutes protected whistleblowing.  There the court notes that “[t]here is, at best, a hair’s-breadth distinction between complaining internally that a practice is illegal under the FCA and advising a supervisor of one’s refusal to engage in that illegal practice.”

What acts of retaliation are prohibited by the False Claims Act anti-retaliation provision?

The False Claims Act prohibits an employer from discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or in any other manner discriminating against a whistleblower.  Prohibited retaliation includes:

  • oral or written reprimands;
  • reassignment of duties;
  • constructive discharge; and
  • retaliatory lawsuits against whistleblowers.

What type of constructive discharge is prohibited by the False Claims Act anti-retaliation law?

In Smith v. LHC Group, Inc., 2018 WL 1136072 (March 2, 2018), the Sixth Circuit held that where an employer ignores an employee’s disclosures about fraud on the government and the employee is reasonably concerned that he may be charged with fraud by the government if he remains in the job, the employee’s resignation is an actionable constructive discharge.  In other words, a jury could find that the employer’s alleged fraudulent behavior plus the employee’s moral conscience and reasonable fear of being accused of participating in the employer’s fraud is enough to justify quitting.

What must a whistleblower prove to prevail in a False Claims Act whistleblower retaliation case?

A whistleblower must prove that:

  1. the whistleblower engaged in protected activity;
  2. the whistleblower’s employer took an adverse employment action against him or her; and
  3. the adverse employment action was taken because of the whistleblower’s protected activity. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1).
To establish the requisite causal connection, a FCA whistleblower retaliation plaintiff must show that her complaint and her termination were not “wholly unrelated.” Clover v. Total System Svcs., Inc., 176 F.3d 1346, 1354 (III) (B) (11th Cir.1999).  This burden can be met with evidence of very close temporal proximity and evidence that the employer was aware of the protected whistleblowing at the time it made the decision to take an adverse employment action against the plaintiff. Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1566 (II) (B) (2) (11th Cir. 1997).
Recently the Third Circuit held that FCA retaliation claims require proof of ‘but-for’ causation. DiFiore v. CSL Behring, LLC, 879 F.3d 71, 78 (3d Cir. 2018).  Note, however, that “but for” caution is not tantamount to sole factor causation.  See Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881, 888-89 (2014) (an act is a “but-for” cause “[even if it] combines with other factors to produce the result, so long as the other factors alone would not have done so – if, so to speak, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.”).

What damages can a whistleblower recover under the whistleblower-protection provision of the False Claims Act?

A whistleblower who prevails in an anti-retaliation action under the FCA may recover:

  • reinstatement;
  • double back pay, plus interest;
  • special damages, which include litigation costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, emotional distress, and other noneconomic harm from the retaliation. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(2).

Recently, a jury awarded more than $2M to a whistleblower in an FCA retaliation case.  As there is no cap on compensatory damages, FCA retaliation plaintiffs can potentially recover substantial damages for the retaliation that they have suffered.

What is the statute of limitations for a False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation Case?

The statute of limitations for FCA retaliation claims is three years from the date on which the retaliation occurred.  FCA retaliation claims can be brought directly in federal court; there is no administrative exhaustion requirement.

False Claims Act Qui Tam Actions

Whistleblower Protections for Employees of Government Contractors and Grantees

Guide to NDAA Whistleblower Protection Law

For more information about whistleblower protections for employees of government contractors and grantees, including Department of Defense contractors, see our Practical Law Practice Note titled Whistleblower Protections Under the National Defense Authorization Act. This Practice Note surveys the legal protections for employees of federal contractors, subcontractors, and grantees that receive federal funds who report waste, fraud, or abuse involving federal funds, a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a federal contract, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

In addition, the outline explains the procedures that govern the filing, investigation and adjudication of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) whistleblower retaliation claims.

Topics covered include:

  • Protected whistleblowing under the NDAA.
  • The scope of coverage of the NDAA’s whistleblower protection provisions.
  • The reasonable belief standard governing NDAA protected whistleblowing.
  • Proving “contributing factor” causation
  • The same-decision affirmative defense
  • Remedies or damages available to prevailing NDAA whistleblowers.

Experienced False Claims Act Whistleblower Retaliation and Whistleblower Protection Lawyers

The experienced whistleblower attorneys at leading whistleblower law firm Zuckerman Law have substantial experience representing whistleblowers disclosing fraud and other wrongdoing at government contractors and grantees.  To schedule a free preliminary consultation, click here or call us at 202-262-8959.

Best SEC Whistleblower Lawyers & Attorneys best maryland employment lawyers

Our experience includes:

  • Representing whistleblowers in NDAA retaliation claims before the Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice Offices of Inspectors General.
  • Litigating False Claims Act retaliation cases.
  • Representing qui tam relators in False Claims Act cases.
  • Representing whistleblowers disclosing fraud on the government in Congressional investigations.
  • Training judges, senior Office of Inspector General officials, and federal law enforcement about whistleblower protections.

In addition, we have substantial experience representing whistleblowers under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) and enforcing the WPA, the law that the NDAA whistleblower provisions are based upon.  Jason Zuckerman served as Senior Legal Advisor to the Special Counsel at OSC, where he worked on the implementation of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and oversaw several high-profile investigations of whistleblower retaliation claims and whistleblower disclosures.

We have also written extensively about whistleblower protections for employees of government contractors and grantees, including the following articles and blog posts:

 

 

whistleblower_lawyers_012017_infographic
Image of SEC Sanctions: Whistleblower Reference Guide

SEC Sanctions: Whistleblower Reference Guide

The SEC Whistleblower Program offers awards to individuals who provide original information that leads to enforcement actions with total civil penalties in excess of $1 million. A whistleblower may receive an award of between 10-30 percent of the total sanctions imposed. The table below identifies some of the largest SEC sanctions.

In FY 2021, the SEC received more than 12,200 whistleblower tips—the largest number of whistleblower tips received in a fiscal year. The most common violations reported by whistleblowers were Manipulation (25%), Corporate Disclosures and Financials (16%), Offering Fraud (16%), Trading and Pricing (6%), and Initial Coin Offerings and Cryptocurrencies (6%).

Sucess of the SEC Whistleblower Program

Since the Dodd-Frank Act went into effect, the SEC Whistleblower Office has awarded more than $1.3 billion to whistleblowers. The information and assistance provided by the whistleblowers who received awards under the program led to successful SEC enforcement actions in which over $5 billion in financial sanctions was ordered.

As discussed in our articles, the SEC Whistleblower Program has become a very effective enforcement tool for the SEC.  But very few whistleblowers have received awards, which underscores the importance of having experienced counsel represent a whistleblower effectively at the SEC.

Washington DC Lawyers Representing SEC Whistleblowers

The whistleblower lawyers at Zuckerman Law represent whistleblowers nationwide and abroad concerning a wide variety of securities law violations that are eligible for SEC whistleblower awards, including:

If you have questions about the SEC Whistleblower Program, contact the experienced SEC whistleblower attorneys at Zuckerman Law for a free, confidential consultation about your case by calling 202-262-8959.

The leading SEC whistleblower lawyers at Zuckerman Law have extensive experience representing corporate whistleblowers at the SEC. U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have named Zuckerman Law a Tier 1 firm in Litigation – Labor and Employment in the Washington DC metropolitan area in the 2021 edition “Best Law Firms.”

DefendantsDateSanction Violations
UBS Securities LLC, et al.Dec. 2008 $23 billion
UBS misled investors regarding the liquidity risks associated with auction rate securities (ARS) that they underwrote, marketed and sold.
Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Wachovia, Bank of America, RBC, Deutsche BankAug. 2008 $20 billion
The banks misrepresented to customers that ARS were safe, highly liquid investments equivalent to money market instruments and cash. The $20 billion represents the combined sanctions against the banks.
WorldCom Inc.July 2003 $2.3 billion
WorldCom misled investors by overstating its income by approximately $9 billion as a result of undisclosed and improper accounting. Specifically, WorldCom reduced its operating expenses by improperly releasing certain reserves held against operating expenses and improperly reduced its operating expenses by recharacterizing certain expenses as capital assets.
American International Group, Inc. (AIG)Feb. 2006 $1.6 billion
AIG was charged with improper accounting, bid rigging and practices involving workers’ compensation funds. According to the SEC's complaint, AIG's entered into two sham reinsurance transactions with General Re Corporation that were solely designed to falsely inflate AIG’s loss reserves by $500 million in order to silence analyst criticism that AIG’s reserves had been declining.
Adelphia Communications Corporation, et al.Apr. 2005$715 million
According to the SEC's compliant, Adelphia: (1) fraudulently excluded billions of dollars in liabilities from its consolidated financial statements by hiding them on the books of off-balance sheet affiliates; (2) falsified operating statistics and inflated earnings to meet Wall Street estimates; and (3) concealed rampant self-dealing by the Rigas family, including the undisclosed use of corporate funds for purchases of Adelphia stock and luxury condominiums.
CR Intrinsic InvestorsMar. 2013 $601 million
CR Intrinsic Investors allegedly participated in an insider trading scheme involving a clinical trial for an Alzheimer's drug. According to the SEC's complaint, the hedge fund advisory firm discovered negative results about the drug's clinical trial two weeks before they were made public. The firm then tipped several hedge funds about the negative results who subsequently sold off more than $960 million of the securities. The settlement is the largest ever in an insider trading case.
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Fabrice TourreJuly 2010 $550 million
Goldman Sachs misled investors in a subprime mortgage product just as the U.S. housing market was starting to collapse. Specifically, the SEC alleged that Goldman misstated and omitted key facts regarding a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) it marketed that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities.
BP p.l.c.Nov. 2012$525 millionBP mislead investors while its Deepwater Horizon oil rig was gushing into the Gulf of Mexico by significantly understating the flow rate in multiple reports filed with the SEC. The oil and gas company made fraudulent public statements about the flow rate of oil per day (5,000 barrels/day) despite its own internal data indicating that the flow rate could significantly higher (146,000 barrels/day).
Federal National Mortgage AssociationMay 2006$400 million
Fannie Mae engaged in a financial fraud involving multiple violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") in connection with the preparation of its annual and quarterly financial statements. These violations falsely portrayed stable earnings growth and reduced income statement volatility in order to maximize bonuses and achieve forecasted earnings.
INVESCO Funds Group, Inc. (IFG), et al.Oct. 2004$377 million
IFG facilitated widespread market timing trading in mutual funds with which each entity was affiliated. According to the SEC's order, "IFG entered into undisclosed market timing agreements with over 40 individuals and entities, which allowed them to market time certain Invesco funds... At their height, the market timers held over $1 billion of the assets invested in the Invesco funds and made excessive exchanges and redemptions totaling approximately $58 billion. In the aggregate, the market timing trades made under the agreements were detrimental to the Invesco funds’ shareholders."
Banc of America Securities LLC, et al.Feb. 2005$375 million
Banc of America Securities LLC allegedly entered into improper and undisclosed agreements that allowed favored large investors to engage in rapid short-term securities trading known as market timing.
Siemens AGDec. 2008$350 million
Siemens violated the FCPA by engaging in a widespread and systematic practice of paying bribes to foreign government officials to obtain business.
Merendon Mining (Nevada) Inc., et al.Nov. 2010$310 million
The SEC's complaint alleged that they architected a Ponzi scheme that persuaded more than 3,000 investors across the U.S. and Canada to invest their savings, retirement funds and even home equity.
Time Warner Inc., et al.Mar. 2005$300 million
Time Warner allegedly was materially overstating online advertising revenue and the number of its Internet subscribers.
J.P. Morgan, et al.Nov. 2012$297 million
Misleading investors in offerings of residential mortgage-backed securities
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., et al.Oct. 2011$285 million
Citigroup mislead investors about a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation (CDO) called Class V Funding III (Class V III).
Prudential Equity Group, LLC, et al.Aug. 2006$270 million
According to the SEC's press release, Prudential's registered representatives defrauded mutual funds by concealing their identities, and those of their customers, to evade mutual funds' prospectus limitations on market timing.
Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.Mar. 2006$250 millionSecurities fraud for facilitating unlawful late trading and deceptive market timing of mutual funds by its customers and customers of its introducing brokers.
Qwest Communications International, Inc.Oct. 2004$250 millionQwest fraudulently recognized over $3.8 billion in revenue and excluded $231 million in expenses as part of a multi-faceted fraudulent scheme to meet optimistic and unsupportable revenue and earnings projections.
AXA Rosenberg Group, LLC, et al.Feb. 2011$242 millionSecurities fraud for concealing a significant error in the computer code of the quantitative investment model that they use to manage client assets. The error caused $217 million in investor losses.
Computer Associates International, Inc., et al.Sep. 2004$225 million
Securities fraud charges for allegedly keeping its books open to record revenue from contracts executed after the quarter ended in order to meet Wall Street quarterly earnings estimates.
Morgan Keegan & Company, et al.June 2011$200 millionFraud charges related to subprime mortgage-backed securities. Specifically, it failed to employ reasonable pricing procedures and nevertheless published the inaccurate daily NAVs and sold shares to investors based on the inflated prices.
Roys Poyiadjis, Lycourgos Kyprianou, et al.June 2005$200 millionAccording to the SEC's complaint, AremisSoft issued fraudulent statements in public filings and press releases, including reporting millions of dollars in sales to entities that either did not exist as operating businesses or did not purchase product from AremisSoft.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.Sep. 2013$200 millionFinancial fraud in JPMorgan's portfolio of credit derivatives known as the Synthetic
Credit Portfolio.
Bristol-Myers Squibb CompanyAug. 2004$150 millionAllegedly overstated sales and earnings to meet or exceed financial projections.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.July 2003$135 millionAiding and abetting Enron Corp.'s securities fraud
Credit Suisse Nov. 2012$133 millionMisleading investors in mortgage offerings related to the financial crisis of 2008.
Mizuho Financial Group, et al.July 2012$127 millionAllegedly misleading investors in a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) by using “dummy assets” to inflate the deal’s credit ratings.
Royal Dutch Petroleum CompanyAug. 2004$120 millionShell overstated proved reserves reported in its 2002 Form 20-F by 4.47 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

SEC Whistleblower Bounties

SEC Whistleblower Lawyers’ Tips to Qualify for an SEC Whistleblower Award

For more information about the SEC whistleblower process, see the SEC’s investor bulletin on SEC investigations.

SEC Whistleblower Protection Against Retaliation

whistleblower_lawyers_012017_infographic
Image of Inadequate Disclosure Whistleblower Attorneys

SEC Targets Disclosure Fraud

The SEC is consistently taking enforcement actions against companies whose public filings or communications have misled or deprived investors of material information. Investors need full, fair, and accurate disclosures to make informed decisions about investments.

Under the SEC Whistleblower Program, whistleblowers can obtain a reward for reporting original information to the SEC about violations of federal securities laws, including misleading or inadequate disclosures. We have successfully represented SEC whistleblowers that provided information to the SEC about disclosure fraud. 

The SEC has awarded nearly $1.3 billion in awards to whistleblowers. The largest SEC whistleblower award to date, $114 million, was issued to a whistleblower who provided the SEC with key information that led to a successful enforcement action.

If you have information that may qualify for an SEC whistleblower award or have suffered whistleblower retaliation, contact the Director of our SEC whistleblower practice at [email protected] or call our leading SEC whistleblower lawyers at (202) 930-5901 or (202) 262-8959.

All inquiries are confidential. In conjunction with our courageous clients, we have helped the SEC halt multi-million dollar investment schemes, expose violations at large publicly traded companies and return funds to defrauded investors. Our SEC whistleblower lawyers have obtained multi-million dollar SEC whistleblower awards for our clients.  Read our tips for SEC whistleblowers.

On September 22, 2022, the SEC charged The Boeing Company and its former CEO with making materially misleading public statements following crashes of Boeing airplanes. According to the SEC’s orders, after the first crash, Boeing and Muilenburg knew that MCAS posed an ongoing airplane safety issue, but nevertheless assured the public that the 737 MAX airplane was “as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies.” Later, following the second crash, Boeing and Muilenburg assured the public that there were no slips or gaps in the certification process with respect to MCAS, despite being aware of contrary information. Boeing and the former CEO entered into cease-and-desist orders that included penalties of $200 million and $1 million, respectively.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division stated: “[P]ublic companies and their executives must provide accurate and complete information when they make disclosures to investors, no matter the circumstances. When they don’t, we will hold them accountable, as we did here.”

“Original Information” Based on Independent Analysis  

SEC whistleblower bounties and rewardsWhistleblowers must submit “original information” to be eligible for an award. This information may be derived from the whistleblower’s independent knowledge or independent analysis. Inadequate disclosure violations present an opportunity for individuals with in-depth market knowledge and experience to provide the SEC with information that may provide the springboard for an investigation.

For example, Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K govern the presentation of companies’ non-GAAP financial measures. These regulations require, among other things, that companies using a non-GAAP measure in their filings include:

  • A presentation of the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, with that presentation having equal or greater prominence than the disclosed non-GAAP measure; and
  • A reconciliation showing the differences between the non-GAAP measure and the most directly comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with GAAP.

Accordingly, if an investor notices that either requirement is amiss from a company’s filings, he or she may submit a tip to the SEC and be eligible for an award. In early 2016, the SEC issued a $700,000 award to a whistleblower for his or her detailed analysis that led to a successful SEC enforcement action.

SEC Enforcement Actions Based on Deficient Internal Controls

There are many examples of SEC enforcement actions based on inadequate disclosures. These include actions for

As Warren Buffett has warned, companies are using non-GAAP numbers to artificially boost earnings. We expect to see an increase in SEC enforcement in this area of inadequate disclosures and have brought whistleblower tips to the SEC disclosing the use of deceptive non-GAAP financial measures.

For example, in December 2015, two JP Morgan wealth management subsidiaries agreed to pay $267 million to settle charges that they failed to disclose conflicts of interest to clients.  According to the SEC order, the investment advisory business and the bank invested clients in the firm’s own proprietary investment products without properly disclosing this preference. Morgan Stanley was fined $50 million for similar inadequate disclosures in 2003.

On February 14, 2017, the SEC fined groups of investors that failed to properly disclose ownership information during a series of campaigns to influence or exert control over microcap companies. In each of these campaigns, the groups collectively owned more than five percent of the companies’ outstanding common stock, yet the required ownership filings to disclose that information to the investing public were either incomplete, untimely, or altogether absent. The investors agreed to penalties ranging from $30,000 to $180,000.

On May 11, 2017, the SEC announced that the former CEO of MDC Partners, Miles S. Nadal, has agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle charges that his perks were not properly disclosed to shareholders. In public companies, all perks, benefits, and other forms of compensation paid to CEOs and highly compensated executive officers must be disclosed. According to the SEC’s order, Nadal obtained nearly $11 million in perks beyond his disclosed benefits and $500,000 annual allowance. This included Nadal’s personal use of private airplanes, charitable donations in his name, yacht and sports car expenses, cosmetic surgery, and a wide range of other perks. Earlier in 2017, MDC Partners agreed to settle this disclosure failure for $1.5 million.

SEC Whistleblower Rewards and Bounties 

SEC Whistleblower TipsUnder the SEC Whistleblower Program, whistleblowers may be eligible for monetary awards when they voluntarily provide the SEC with original information about violations that leads the SEC to bring a successful enforcement action resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000.  Whistleblowers are eligible to receive between 10 percent and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected.

SEC Whistleblower Lawyers

The SEC Whistleblower Program also protects the confidentiality of whistleblowers and does not disclose information that might directly or indirectly reveal a whistleblower’s identity. Furthermore, the Dodd-Frank Act protects whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers for reporting violations of securities laws.

Recently the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners published a profile of Matt Stock’s success working with whistleblowers to fight fraud:

SEC whistleblower lawyers

U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have named Zuckerman Law a Tier 1 firm in Litigation – Labor and Employment in the Washington DC metropolitan area in the 2022 edition “Best Law Firms.”

 

SEC Whistleblower Process to Obtain an SEC Whistleblower Award

Protections for SEC Whistleblowers

Drawing on substantial experience representing corporate whistleblowers in SOX whistleblower cases, our SOX whistleblower lawyers have published a free guide to SOX titled Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection: Robust Protection for Corporate Whistleblowers:

whistleblower_lawyers_012017_infographic
Image of SEC Whistleblower Awards FAQs

 

Securities Fraud Whistleblowers RewardIf you have original information about fraud that may qualify for an SEC whistleblower award, contact the Director of our SEC whistleblower practice at [email protected] or call our leading SEC whistleblower lawyers at (202) 930-5901 or (202) 262-8959. All inquiries are confidential.  This page has FAQs and other resources for prospective SEC whistleblowers.

sec whistleblower bountiesOur experienced and effective SEC whistleblower attorneys will provide SEC whistleblowers with the highest-quality representation. In conjunction with our courageous clients, we have helped the SEC halt multi-million dollar investment schemes, expose violations at large publicly traded companies, and return funds to defrauded investors.

In contrast to most SEC whistleblower law firms, our team includes a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Fraud Examiner with substantial experience auditing public companies and investigating complex fraud schemes.

 

Attorneys Representing SEC Whistleblowers

Tips for SEC Whistleblowers

SEC Whistleblower Process to Obtain an SEC Whistleblower Award

Protections for SEC Whistleblowers

Overview of the SEC Whistleblower Program

Whistleblowers Eligible for an Award

Reporting to the SEC and Maximizing Award Percentage

After Reporting to the SEC

To learn more about the SEC Whistleblower Program, download Zuckerman Law’s eBook: SEC Whistleblower Program: Tips from SEC Whistleblower Attorneys to Maximize an SEC Whistleblower Award:

SEC Whistleblower Program Tips from SEC Whistleblower Attorneys to Maximize an SEC Whistleblower Award

SEC Whistleblower Protection Lawyers

The SEC whistleblower protection lawyers at Zuckerman Law have represented CEOs, CFOs, in-house counsel, partners at audit firms and other senior professionals in high-stakes whistleblower matters.  Click here to read reviews and testimonials from whistleblower clients.

Drawing on our substantial experience representing corporate whistleblowers, we have published a free guide to SOX titled Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protection: Robust Protection for Corporate Whistleblowers:

Click here to learn more about anti-retaliation protections for SEC whistleblowers under the Dodd-Frank Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

whistleblower_lawyers_012017_infographic