Filed in archive SOX by leon on June 5, 2007

In the past. I have looked at the shortcomings of Sarbanes-Oxley in relation to whistleblowers here and here

A recent paper from Richard Moberly sheds light on why the Act does not deliver.

The paper, Unfulfilled expectations: An empirical analysis of why Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers rarely win found that in its first three years, only 3.6 per cent of Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers won relief and only 6.5 per cent won appeals through the process.

The paper examines the legal limitations of the Act, with its rigid procedural rules and statutory requirements and makes several suggestions including extending its 90-day statute of limitations to 180 days, fixing up the "burden of proof" provision and clarifying the Act's coverage so that employees can report wrongdoings that are not deemed to be outside the jurisdiction of Sarbanes-Oxley. Finally, it suggests giving employees scope for more participation in the investigation process.

Related Entries:

Whistleblowers and Slippery Slopes - 17 February 2006
Calling all whistleblowers - 29 March 2006
Sarbanes-Oxley, Whistleblowers and Culture Clash - 15 May 2006
SOX no good for whistleblowers - 16 February 2007
Women whistleblowers suffer more - 05 May 2008

« Does pay for performance ... | Main | The link between ethics a... »

Permalink: Sarbanes-Oxley and whistleblowers

Tags: Richard Moberly whistleblowers oxley sarbanes sarbanes+oxley oxley+whistleblowers conrad+black

Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/73496

Addthis

Ask

Blinklist

del.icio.us

Digg

Fark

Facebook

Google

Lycos

Ma.gnolia

Mr Wong

Netscape

Netvousz

Newsvine

StumbleUpon

Slashdot

Tailrank

Technorati

Wink

Yahoo

Vote for Sarbanes-Oxley and whistleblowers:

Currently 9.38/10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rating: 9.38 out of 8 vote(s) cast.

Response from: John (05/30/09 8:39am)

My advise to anyone considering blowing the whistle is be very careful! Unless you have made tape recordings and possess documents to prove your case don't take the plunge. Get a good attorney. Do your research here otherwise you will end up like me - blackballed and broke. Do not rely on the SEC to help you. I blew the whistle and recieved one year salary $270K only later to find out my attorney was financialy strapped, recommended that I file an arbitration claim resulting in losing everything I had gained. Then I discover the JAMS arbitrator's husband works for and reports to a member of the defendants board of directors. The defendant also happen to make a sizable "contribution" to the husband's employer. Of course, she failed to disclose it and JAMS didn't see anything wrong with that. If you cannot believe all this, you are not alone. Blowing the whistle has destroyed my career, savings and family. But my integrity is intact. I now work as a programmer, where previously I successfully managed 3 mutual funds with assets of $800 million dollars for a well known - soon to be better known and disgraced publicly traded asset manager. I gave 7 hours of testimony to the SEC in 2006 and they are still investigating. My former employer is implicated in NYS AG Cuomo's New York State's Pension probe. I hope others do not make the same mistakes. JAMS is biased. Avoid it like the plague. Good luck to those considering blowing the whistle. Honor comes with a high cost.

Response from: BizzBites.com

Sarbanes-Oxley needs radical surgery to protect whistleblowers. Start by extending its 90-day statute of limitations to 180 days, fixing up the "burden of proof" provision and clarifying the Act's coverage so that employees can report wrongdoings that ...

Response from: news.fatpitchfinancials.com

Response from: