Want to Avoid CFTC Enforcement Actions? Here's How.
More than $45 million in recent awards should remind businesses to proactively look within and implement effective whistleblower programs to protect themselves from potential enforcement actions.
September 27, 2018 at 03:30 PM
5 minute read
In a recent series of decisions, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has issued millions of dollars in awards to whistleblowers. In August alone, those awards totaled more than $45 million. These awards are an important reminder for businesses to proactively look within and implement effective whistleblower programs to protect themselves from potential enforcement actions. While doing so, businesses should be aware of the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers on the CFTC's whistleblower anti-retaliation protections.
Recent Awards
The CFTC's Whistleblower Program provides monetary incentives to individuals who voluntarily provide original information relating to possible violations of the Commodity Exchange Act that lead to a successful enforcement action resulting in more than $1 million in sanctions. Whistleblowers can receive between 10 and 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected. In its most recent annual report to Congress, the CFTC reported that it received complaints relating to issues including virtual currencies, spoofing, manipulation and fraud.
The CFTC defines a “whistleblower” as any individual providing information relating to a violation of the CEA to the CFTC in a manner established by the CFTC. The CFTC's Regulations provide that an employer cannot retaliate against a whistleblower for providing information to the CFTC or assisting in any CFTC investigation or action based upon such information. The CFTC's anti-retaliation rules are enforceable in a CFTC proceeding, including where retaliation is in response to a whistleblower providing information to the CFTC after reporting the information through internal whistleblower, legal or compliance procedures.
Businesses should take heed of recent awards, as the CFTC's Division of Enforcement frequently initiates investigations based on complaints received by its whistleblower office. Over the past two months, the CFTC has been particularly active in issuing whistleblower awards, demonstrating that its whistleblower program has taken root. For example, on July 12, the CFTC announced an award of approximately $30 million to an individual—its largest ever. Four days later, the CFTC announced its first award to a whistleblower living in a foreign country. And on Aug. 2, the CFTC announced three awards totaling more than $45 million. By contrast, over the preceding four years, the CFTC had issued just four awards to whistleblowers. Calling 2018 a “transformative year” for the whistleblower program, the CFTC's enforcement director expects this trend to continue.
Effective Programs
Potential whistleblowers have taken notice. In its August press release, the CFTC reported that both the volume and complexity of whistleblower submissions have increased. Accordingly, businesses should revisit their whistleblower programs to ensure they are equipped to get ahead of possible enforcement actions.
Businesses should create whistleblower reporting hotlines that are accessible to employees globally. The hotlines should offer whistleblowers an opportunity to report issues in a way that preserves whistleblowers' anonymity while allowing investigators to confidentially follow up with whistleblowers for more detail.
Businesses should have qualified staff available to review complaints and promptly to determine whether the allegations raise serious legal, reputational or financial risks. If so, the reviewers should immediately escalate the complaints for further investigation to an appropriate function such as legal, compliance or human resources, depending on the nature of the allegations. The function conducting the investigation must have sufficient independence and not itself be the subject of the allegations. For investigations of particularly serious allegations, the business should consider retaining external counsel.
Businesses should also have a strong anti-retaliation policy. Depending on the nature of the allegations and whether the whistleblower wishes to remain anonymous, investigators should ensure that the identity of the whistleblower is not revealed where unnecessary. Employees who are the subject of the allegations should be reminded of the anti-retaliation policy. Allegations of retaliation should themselves be promptly investigated and addressed.
Implications of Digital Realty Trust
Businesses should also note the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers on the CFTC's whistleblower anti-retaliation protections. In Digital Realty, an employee was terminated after reporting suspected securities law violations to senior management but did not report these suspected violations to the SEC prior to his termination. The Supreme Court explained that Dodd-Frank's definition of “whistleblower” is clear. It means a person who provides “information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission.” The high court held that the anti-retaliation provision does not apply if a violation is not reported to the SEC; therefore, the employee was not a “whistleblower” under Dodd-Frank.
As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, in a June 28 release, the SEC proposed amending its whistleblower rules to make them consistent with the Digital Realty decision by requiring that whistleblowers make a written submission to the SEC to qualify for Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation protections.
Given the CFTC's intense focus on whistleblower complaints and the increased incentives in award amounts and frequency, now is a good time for businesses to get ahead of any potential enforcement actions by maintaining robust internal whistleblower programs.
The authors are partners with Murphy & McGonigle. Davis and Walsh previously served in the CFTC's Division of Enforcement, and Facciponti is a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew York Mayor Adams Attacks Fed Prosecutor's Independence, Appeals to Trump
5 minute readThe Marble Palace Blog: Supreme Court Books You Should Read in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1When Words Matter: Mastering Interpretation in Complex Disputes
- 2People in the News—Jan. 28, 2025—Buchanan Ingersoll, Kleinbard
- 3Digital Assets and the ‘Physical Loss’ Dilemma: How the Fourth Circuit’s Ruling on Crypto Theft Stands at Odds With Modern Realities
- 4State's Expert Discovery Rules Need Revision
- 5O'Melveny, White & Case, Skadden Beef Up in Texas With Energy, Real Estate Lateral Partner Hires
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250