Of nearly 1,000 employees who have claimed Sarbox whistle-blower protection, many have seen their cases dismissed, and some have settled. But not one has ultimately prosecuted their case successfully.
Stephen Taub, CFO.com | US
June 8, 2007
The tone of this article is that the SARBOX whistleblower provision is not so bad since most cases filed are dismissed. However, since 27% of these cases end up being settled, it looks like whistleblowers stand a good chance of collecting something. If a corporate employee feels that they are facing a layoff, they can file a whistleblower complaint to buy some time. Even if most complaints are dismissed, the whistleblower has nothing to lose and much to gain. With such good odds, more complaints will be filed and public companies will spend lots of money fighting them. This does not bode will for companies covered under Sarbanes-Oxley.
Posted by Jim Moroney | June 28, 2007 01:24 pm
Concerning the fact that whistleblower protection under Sarbanes Oxley legislation cannot be sustained in court, then it seems reasonable that other sections of the Sarbanes Oxley legislation, such as Section 404, should also be called into question as viable legislation.
Posted by Michalina Pietras | June 11, 2007 10:08 am
Rather than fight (whistle blow) the lesson here is that one is better off joining the system and encouraging the principles (perceived) misrepresentations.
Posted by Roland Cycan | June 11, 2007 09:53 am
As a SOX Whistleblower I can speak clearly to this issue. There is no one in this country who is rightly supporting the Whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, for fear of reprisal at both the government and corporate level. If the Law fails us because we fail to be fighters for freedom under the law, then civilization and our way of life will be consumed by people who have gained power and use it with all of the efficiency of a vacuum cleaner, acquiring what they want until there is no structure, no property, no people, no freedom, no life, no purpose, no truth but their own. Ultimately, they themselves fail for having consumed all of their own support systems. Armies have failed for lack of a ball bearing,because the machinist was deemed unecessary who had the intellectual knowledge to produce it. The Sarbanes Oxley Act is there simply to protect the genuine interests of the people. Once a ship sunk for killing the cook. The very theory of Marxism was corporate to begin with: a body politic that robs the people and destroys the evidence.
Posted by Jean Marshall | June 11, 2007 08:32 am
Just because we provide a tool for whistle blowing to occur does not mean that it will be a successful tool. While we can have rules and regulations, there will always be some who will choose to flaunt those rules and regulations to others detriment - regardless of the field of endeavor. What you will find is that those with integrity and especially those with fierce integrity with an eye for excelling, these will quietly leave a group and search until they find one with which they are compatible. This compatibility factor I'm referring to is really another way of saying 'the character' of those at the top. When you get a group of men and women of integrity and character focused on pursuing a thing to the best of their ability consistently - you will eventually see that group at the top of their peers. At the same time, you will find some groups that fluourish for a time, only to fall on the heap of disgrace because someone or a group of someones were not really people of integrity and character and a passion to do something to the best of their ability consistently. With that in mind, I've found it much better to understand the character of the leaders of a group I'm interested in BEFORE investing in that group (be it time and energy or finances whether for a local community group or a company to invest my finances), as it saves time in understanding whether or not their numbers are worth reviewing(whether we're talking about the number of people served or the number of dollars earned). So my theory is that whistles are not really good tools because those that need it most are the least likely to accept it and learn from it and those that need it least will have learned before it becomes a large 'whistle-blowing' type of act.
Posted by Patricia Wooldridge | June 09, 2007 11:58 am© CFO Publishing Corporation 2009. All rights reserved.