NEW WHISTLEBLOWER INCENTIVES AND PROTECTION IN THE DODD-FRANK ACTptcollins
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” (“Dodd-Frank Act”). The legislation is primarily designed to increase overall regulation of the financial industry, but it also contains numerous provisions designed to encourage and protect whistleblowers in and outside of the financial industry.
NMM Law Alert
Gearoid Carey is co-author (with Michael Collins SC) of the Irish Chapter of the ICCA Handbook on Commercial Arbitration. The handbook contains authoritative country reports prepared by leading arbitrators, academics and practitioners on national arbitral practice, as well as the relevant national legislation.
NEW WHISTLEBLOWER INCENTIVES AND PROTECTION IN THE DODD-FRANK ACTptcollins
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” (“Dodd-Frank Act”). The legislation is primarily designed to increase overall regulation of the financial industry, but it also contains numerous provisions designed to encourage and protect whistleblowers in and outside of the financial industry.
NMM Law Alert
Gearoid Carey is co-author (with Michael Collins SC) of the Irish Chapter of the ICCA Handbook on Commercial Arbitration. The handbook contains authoritative country reports prepared by leading arbitrators, academics and practitioners on national arbitral practice, as well as the relevant national legislation.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) just issued a press release announcing KBR, Inc. has its “first enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in confidentiality agreements with the potential to stifle the whistleblowing process.”
At issue, was KBR, Inc.’s standard practice of requiring employees interviewed in internal investigations to sign confidentiality statements with the following language:
“I understand that in order to protect the integrity of this review, I am prohibited from discussing any particulars regarding this interview and the subject matter discussed during the interview, without the prior authorization of the Law Department. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure of information may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”
The SEC found those terms violated Rule 21F-17, which prohibits companies from taking any action that would impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities violations to the SEC.
In addition to agreeing to pay a fine of $130,000, KBR, Inc. also agreed to amend its standard confidentiality statement signed by employees interviewed during an internal investigation to read as follows:
“Nothing in this Confidentiality Statement prohibits me from reporting possible violations of federal law or regulation to any governmental agency or entity, including but not limited to the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Congress, and any agency Inspector General, or making other disclosures that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of federal law or regulation. I do not need the prior authorization of the Law Department to make any such reports or disclosures and I am not required to notify the company that I have made such reports or disclosures.”
To read more visit www.WinWinHR.com
CHAPTER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES2➢ What is the key fuJinElias52
CHAPTER GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
2
➢ What is the key functional
area for IG impact?
➢ How does IG impact legal
functions in an organization?
➢ What are the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure (FRCP)?
➢ How is e-discovery affected
by the FRCP?
➢ Outline the holding of
Zubulake v.
UBS
➢ Know the facts and how it
affects IG and e-discovery
➢ What are currently e-
discovery techniques
CHAPTER GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES…Continued
3
➢ What is the e-discovery
reference model?
➢ What is it used for?
➢ How does IG impact E-
Discovery?
➢ What is a record retention
policy?
➢ What are the benefits of a
record retention policy?
➢ What is predictive coding
➢ What case law impacted the
use of predictive coding?
➢ What is Technology Assisted
Review
➢ What are the 8 steps to
defensible disposition of
information?
Key Legal Processes Impacted
by IG
4
➢ E-Discovery
➢ Legal Hold Notification
➢ Defensible Disposition
➢ Use of new technology to comply with E-discovery
“Discovery”:
Pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in
which each party, through the law of
civil procedure, can obtain evidence
5
from the other party or parties by
means of discovery devices such as a
request for answers to Interrogatories,
Requests for Production of Documents,
Request for Admissions and
depositions. Discovery can be obtained
from non-parties using subpoenas.
When a discovery request is objected
to, the requesting party may seek the
assistance of the court by filing a
motion to compel discovery.
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
E-DISCOVERY
The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure govern civil proceedings in the
United States district courts. Their
purpose is "to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The rules were first adopted by order of
the Supreme Court on December 20,
Congress on1937, transmitted to
January 3, 1938, and effective
September 16, 1938.
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-
practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-
RELEVANT 2006 CHANGES TO THE
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
6
➢ Revisions applicable to
preservation of electronic records in
the litigation process
➢ Revisions applicable to the discovery
of electronic records in the litigation
process
Applicable to “ESI”- Any information that is
created or stored in electronic form
GOAL of 2006 revision:
✓ Recognize importance of ESI
✓ Respond to increasingly prohibitive costs
of document reviews
✓ Protection of privileged information
FRCP AMENDED 2006 ARE
APPLICABLE TO WHAT?
7
➢ Cases in Federal Court
➢ Civil Cases
➢ All types of e-documents stored on all types of storage
devices and communication devices
➢ All content on those devices including metadata
Consider the Impact of “Big Data”
8
➢ The average Employee creates roughly 1 gig ...
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPatentsNMore
USPTO Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of U.S. Supreme Court decision Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Issued June 25, 2014.
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection responseSteven McGee
patent application 13/573,002 Supreme Court Alice Corp V CLS Bank compliant application "claims may not direct towards abstract ideas" implies requirement for physical meme. Little League Baseball Tournament physical meme first (and best) physical meme embodiment compliant with SC Alice Corp Vs CLS Bank see http://sawconcepts.com/index/id46.html
Why business method patents cannot be too quickly dismissedMoses Muchiri
A presentation on current developments on patents for business methods mainly in the U.S. but also in the E.U. The aim of the presentation is to provoke thoughts on patentability of business methods and to highlight issues emerging from recent judicial decisions on the subject.
February 2019 newsletter of UK Adjudicators.
MACOB 20 years on
NSW adjudication
Hong Kong adjudication
2019 Edinburgh Adjudication and Arbitration Conference
Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 27 (24 January 2019)
Records Retention And Destruction PoliciesRichard Austin
This presentation reviews the legal reasons for companies to establish a records retention and destruction policy and identifies the major steps in establishing a policy. It also presents a high level overview of the new Ontario e-Discovery rules.
More Related Content
Similar to Understanding In Re Bilski A Practical Approach
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) just issued a press release announcing KBR, Inc. has its “first enforcement action against a company for using improperly restrictive language in confidentiality agreements with the potential to stifle the whistleblowing process.”
At issue, was KBR, Inc.’s standard practice of requiring employees interviewed in internal investigations to sign confidentiality statements with the following language:
“I understand that in order to protect the integrity of this review, I am prohibited from discussing any particulars regarding this interview and the subject matter discussed during the interview, without the prior authorization of the Law Department. I understand that the unauthorized disclosure of information may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”
The SEC found those terms violated Rule 21F-17, which prohibits companies from taking any action that would impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities violations to the SEC.
In addition to agreeing to pay a fine of $130,000, KBR, Inc. also agreed to amend its standard confidentiality statement signed by employees interviewed during an internal investigation to read as follows:
“Nothing in this Confidentiality Statement prohibits me from reporting possible violations of federal law or regulation to any governmental agency or entity, including but not limited to the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Congress, and any agency Inspector General, or making other disclosures that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of federal law or regulation. I do not need the prior authorization of the Law Department to make any such reports or disclosures and I am not required to notify the company that I have made such reports or disclosures.”
To read more visit www.WinWinHR.com
CHAPTER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES2➢ What is the key fuJinElias52
CHAPTER GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
2
➢ What is the key functional
area for IG impact?
➢ How does IG impact legal
functions in an organization?
➢ What are the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure (FRCP)?
➢ How is e-discovery affected
by the FRCP?
➢ Outline the holding of
Zubulake v.
UBS
➢ Know the facts and how it
affects IG and e-discovery
➢ What are currently e-
discovery techniques
CHAPTER GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES…Continued
3
➢ What is the e-discovery
reference model?
➢ What is it used for?
➢ How does IG impact E-
Discovery?
➢ What is a record retention
policy?
➢ What are the benefits of a
record retention policy?
➢ What is predictive coding
➢ What case law impacted the
use of predictive coding?
➢ What is Technology Assisted
Review
➢ What are the 8 steps to
defensible disposition of
information?
Key Legal Processes Impacted
by IG
4
➢ E-Discovery
➢ Legal Hold Notification
➢ Defensible Disposition
➢ Use of new technology to comply with E-discovery
“Discovery”:
Pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in
which each party, through the law of
civil procedure, can obtain evidence
5
from the other party or parties by
means of discovery devices such as a
request for answers to Interrogatories,
Requests for Production of Documents,
Request for Admissions and
depositions. Discovery can be obtained
from non-parties using subpoenas.
When a discovery request is objected
to, the requesting party may seek the
assistance of the court by filing a
motion to compel discovery.
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
E-DISCOVERY
The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure govern civil proceedings in the
United States district courts. Their
purpose is "to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The rules were first adopted by order of
the Supreme Court on December 20,
Congress on1937, transmitted to
January 3, 1938, and effective
September 16, 1938.
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-
practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-
RELEVANT 2006 CHANGES TO THE
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
6
➢ Revisions applicable to
preservation of electronic records in
the litigation process
➢ Revisions applicable to the discovery
of electronic records in the litigation
process
Applicable to “ESI”- Any information that is
created or stored in electronic form
GOAL of 2006 revision:
✓ Recognize importance of ESI
✓ Respond to increasingly prohibitive costs
of document reviews
✓ Protection of privileged information
FRCP AMENDED 2006 ARE
APPLICABLE TO WHAT?
7
➢ Cases in Federal Court
➢ Civil Cases
➢ All types of e-documents stored on all types of storage
devices and communication devices
➢ All content on those devices including metadata
Consider the Impact of “Big Data”
8
➢ The average Employee creates roughly 1 gig ...
USPTO Examiner Guidelines Post - Alice v. CLS BankUSPatentsNMore
USPTO Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of U.S. Supreme Court decision Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Issued June 25, 2014.
USPTO patent 13573002 final rejection responseSteven McGee
patent application 13/573,002 Supreme Court Alice Corp V CLS Bank compliant application "claims may not direct towards abstract ideas" implies requirement for physical meme. Little League Baseball Tournament physical meme first (and best) physical meme embodiment compliant with SC Alice Corp Vs CLS Bank see http://sawconcepts.com/index/id46.html
Why business method patents cannot be too quickly dismissedMoses Muchiri
A presentation on current developments on patents for business methods mainly in the U.S. but also in the E.U. The aim of the presentation is to provoke thoughts on patentability of business methods and to highlight issues emerging from recent judicial decisions on the subject.
February 2019 newsletter of UK Adjudicators.
MACOB 20 years on
NSW adjudication
Hong Kong adjudication
2019 Edinburgh Adjudication and Arbitration Conference
Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 27 (24 January 2019)
Records Retention And Destruction PoliciesRichard Austin
This presentation reviews the legal reasons for companies to establish a records retention and destruction policy and identifies the major steps in establishing a policy. It also presents a high level overview of the new Ontario e-Discovery rules.
Similar to Understanding In Re Bilski A Practical Approach (20)
16. II. How In re Bilski Changed The Law Under 35 USC §101 B. The Bilski Decision-Facts Claim 1 of the Bilski application recites a method for managing risks cost of a commodity comprising the steps of: (a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer;
![In This Presentation, We Will Cover: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()