Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Significant Whistleblower Incentives and Protect in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act


July 22, 2010

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the 2,319-page Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Act") into law. Among other things, the Act provides significant incentives and protections to whistleblowers through amendments to both the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Securities Exchange Act").1 Financial institutions or their holding companies with securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act have always been susceptible to claims of allegedly materially misstating their financial condition or results of operations (for example, by overstating the fair value of their financial assets or omitting material information from their public filings). However, those risks are greatly amplified by the Act's empowerment and protection of whistleblower plaintiffs.


Under the Act, whistleblowers who provide original information to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") or the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") of alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange or Securities Exchange Acts are entitled to an award of between 10 percent and 30 percent of the amount collected from the violator. Certain public servants with duties to uncover those violations, including law enforcement agents and SEC officials, are ineligible to receive the monetary incentives. The CFTC and the SEC have discretion in whether to award the incentives, to whom the incentives should be given, and what amount should be awarded based on criteria in the Act. However, the whistleblower has the right to appeal the CFTC's or the SEC's determination to the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.

Whistleblower Protections

A significant protection under the Act is that the whistleblower may provide the original information and seek the incentives under that Act anonymously, although he or she must disclose his or her identity to the CFTC or the SEC before the incentives are paid out.

The Act also provides substantial anti-retaliation protection to whistleblowers. While whistleblowers were previously required to pursue administrative remedies for their employers' retaliatory actions, the Act now provides that whistleblowers may bring complaints for retaliatory conduct directly in the United States District Courts. Significantly, the Act deems pre-dispute arbitration agreements related to whistleblowers' claims to be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, the statute of limitations for alleged retaliatory conduct is expanded to two years after the claimed retaliation under the Commodity Exchange Act, and six years after the retaliatory conduct under the Securities Exchange Act. [Under the Securities Exchange Act only, the retaliatory conduct claim also may be brought within three years of when the facts giving rise to the claim were known or reasonably should have been known if that period is longer than six years from the retaliation itself. In no event, however, can a claim be brought more than 10 years after the violation.]

The remedy for retaliatory conduct against a whistleblower under the Commodity Exchange Act is reinstatement at the same seniority status, back pay with interest and other special damages, including litigation costs, expert witness fees and attorney's fees. Relief under the Securities Exchange Act is largely identical, but it allows for twice the amount of back pay with interest.

Adapting to the Dodd-Frank Act's Whistleblower Provisions

An important change to which many businesses will need to adapt is the possibility that retaliation claims may now be brought by whistleblowers as late as 10 years after the claimed retaliation. Businesses should review their record retention policies in light of this change to preserve a decade's worth of documentation of non-retaliatory reasons for disciplinary conduct against a whistleblower. In addition, although pre-dispute arbitration clauses are commonplace in employment agreements, businesses need to be aware that these clauses will not be enforced with respect to whistleblowers' retaliation claims. Finally, while the Act does provide for criminal prosecution of whistleblowers who provide false information, the financial incentives available to whistleblowers under the Act (which could be worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars) seems certain to increase this type of high-dollar, high-profile litigation. To minimize the likelihood of increased CFTC and/or SEC investigations, as well as related whistleblower litigation, businesses should review their internal reporting policies to provide potential whistleblowers with increased opportunities to report information internally before turning to the CFTC or the SEC.

Additional analysis of those provisions of the Act affecting community banks and their holding companies will be forthcoming in a separate alert.

If you have any questions regarding the information in this alert, or with respect to other provisions for this legislation, please contact any of the attorneys in our business or litigation Financial Institutions Groups.

1 Dodd-Frank Act, 111th Cong. §§ 748, 922 (2010).

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.