Today, the Second Circuit issued its highly anticipated decision in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy, ruling (in a 2-1 decision) that Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protection provision applies to internal complaints (i.e., complaints that are made by employees within the company and not to the SEC). This creates a circuit split;
Steven J. Pearlman
Steven J. Pearlman is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, where he is Head of the Restrictive Covenants, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition Group and Co-Head of the Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group.
Employment, Restrictive Covenant & Trade Secret, and Whistleblower Practice. Steven’s national practice focuses on defending companies in federal and state courts and in arbitration fora against the full spectrum of employment-related claims, including claims of executives; restrictive covenant violations; employee raiding; theft of trade secrets; whistleblower retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act and similar state laws; and wage-and-hour violations, including class, collective and PAGA actions.
Steven has successfully handled trials in multiple jurisdictions; prevailed in seeking and defending against applications for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions; defended one of the largest Illinois-only class actions in the history of the federal courts in Illinois (over 90k putative class members); and prevailed following his oral arguments before federal and state appellate courts. He brings his litigation experience (beginning in 1998) to bear in counseling clients to minimize risk and avoid or prepare for success in litigation.
Investigations. Reporting to boards of directors, their audit committees, CEOs and in-house counsel, Steven conducts sensitive investigations and has the unusual experience of testifying in federal court in connection with investigations. His investigations have involved complaints of sexual harassment involving C-suite officers; systemic violations of employment laws and company policies; and fraud, compliance failures and unethical conduct.
Thought Leadership and Accolades. Steven was named Lawyer of the Year for Chicago Labor & Employment Litigation in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. He is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. Chambers has reported:
- Steven is “one of the best in the country and has a lot of experience”;
- Steven is as an “outstanding lawyer” who is “very sharp and very responsive,” a “strong advocate,” and an “expert in his field”;
- He is thoughtful, attentive and demonstrates an acute understanding of matters top of mind for business-minded general counsel; and
- "He is someone who can navigate the twists and turns of litigation without difficulty.”
Steven was 1 of 12 individuals selected by Compliance Week as a "Top Mind." Earlier in his career, he was 1 of 5 U.S. lawyers selected by Law360 as a ”Rising Star Under 40” in the area of employment law and 1 of “40 Illinois Attorneys Under Forty to Watch” selected by Law Bulletin Publishing Company. Steven is a U.S. Library of Congress Burton Award Winner for “Distinguished Legal Writing.”
Steven was appointed to Law360’s Employment Editorial Advisory Board and selected as a Contributor to Forbes.com. He has appeared on Bloomberg News (television and radio) and Yahoo! Finance, and is often quoted in leading publications such as The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has engaged Steven to serve as lead counsel on amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts of appeal.
In 2024, Steven received the Excellence in Pro Bono Service Award from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.
SEC Awards Compliance Officer Whistleblower Bounty of Approximately $1.5 Million
Earlier today, the SEC announced that it would pay an unidentified compliance officer a whistleblower bounty award of between $1.4 and $1.6 million. This is the second award that the SEC has made to a whistleblower with internal audit or compliance responsibilities. According to the SEC, the recipient of the bounty award “had a reasonable basis to believe that disclosure to the SEC was necessary to prevent imminent misconduct from causing substantial financial harm to the company or investors.”
SEC’s Limit on Retroactivity of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Bounty Awards Is Reasonable, Second Circuit Holds
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently deferred to the SEC’s determination that a tipster who provided information to the Commission before July 21, 2010, the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, is not eligible to receive a whistleblower bounty payment. Stryker v. SEC, Case No. 13-4404-ag (2d Cir. Mar. 11, 2015).
First SEC Whistleblower Award To Former Company Officer
On March 2, 2015, the SEC announced an expected award
of $475,000 to $575,000 to a former company officer “who reported original, high-quality information about a securities fraud that resulted in an SEC enforcement action with sanctions exceeding $1 million.” The officer reported information to the SEC more than 120 days after other responsible compliance personnel at the company in possession of the information purportedly failed to adequately address the issue. This is the first of its kind under the SEC’s whistleblower program, and the first award announced this year.
Court Follows 5th Circuit Asadi Decision, Dismisses Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Claim
Guest Post from Proskauer’s Whistleblower Defense Blog.
Written By Steven J. Pearlman, Lloyd Chinn, Harris Mufson and Noa Baddish on November 12, 2014
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in Verfuerth v. Orion Energy Systems, Inc., No. 14-cv-352 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 4, 2014) recently ruled that the Dodd-Frank whistleblower protection provision does not protect employees who only report alleged violations of the securities laws internally. In dismissing a former CEO’s whistleblower retaliation claim, the court followed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Asadi v. F.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013) and held that the text of the statute requires that a “whistleblower” report an alleged violation to the SEC to be covered by Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protection provision.
Study: Does The Existence Of Whistleblowers In Enforcement Actions Mean Greater Penalties?
Guest Post from Proskauer’s Whistleblower Defense Blog
Written By Steven J. Pearlman and Rachel Fischer on November 5, 2014
According to an academic study published on October 6, 2014 by Andrew C. Hall, Gerald S. Martin, Nathan Y. Sharp, and Jaron H. Wilde, the presence of whistleblowers may have a meaningful impact on the outcomes of enforcement actions brought by the SEC and DOJ. The study involved an analysis of the effect of whistleblowers on enforcement actions for alleged financial misrepresentation, as measured by regulatory penalties (and criminal prison sentences). The study’s authors reviewed the outcomes of SEC and DOJ enforcement actions between 1978 and 2012 associated with alleged financial misrepresentation. According to the study, the involvement of whistleblowers in enforcement actions is associated with an average penalty of $90.16 to $92.88 million higher than when no whistleblower is involved. The study also found that whistleblower involvement is associated with executives and employees at firms being fined $50.22 to $56.50 million more than in actions without whistleblowers.