The SEC adopted a new rule mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd Frank Act”) that requires public companies to disclose the ratio of the compensation of its chief executive officer (“CEO”) to the median compensation of its employees.
Whistleblowers continue to reap extraordinary awards under Dodd-Frank’s “bounty” program in exchange for bringing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “original” information that leads to a successful enforcement action.
Scope of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Provision Remains Critical, Open Question (Video)
Can an employee who blows the whistle on alleged securities law violations within the company (and is therefore protected by the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), but does not blow the whistle externally to the SEC, also invoke the more advantageous anti-retaliation protections of the Dodd-Frank Act in a private lawsuit?
A recent American Banker article written by officials of three community groups urges President Obama to publicly denounce Director Cordray for failing to issue regulations implementing the small business lending data requirements of Dodd-Frank Section 1071.
In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) introduced the current version of unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UDAAP), making it unlawful for any service provider of consumer financial products or services to engage in any UDAAP.
Just days after the release of the final diversity standards under Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act, several prominent lawmakers and business leaders have criticized the new standards for not going far enough to promote diversity and inclusion within the financial services industry.
Last week, the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy, a case that places squarely before the Court the question of who is a “whistleblower” within the meaning of the Dodd-Frank Act Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”).
On May 5, 2015, in Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc., No. C-14-5180, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that an internal complaint of an alleged securities law violation is sufficient to invoke the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation protection.