The Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of SEC whistleblower retaliation provisions. Though the decision limits retaliation actions, employers should continue to avoid conduct that can be interpreted as retaliation under other statutes, and should find ways to encourage internal reporting.
Michael Peregrine wrote this bylined article analyzing what he called the “significant emerging governance trend” in which corporate boards proactively exercise “more vigorous and direct oversight of the organization’s corporate culture,” reflecting “an increasing awareness of how matters of culture and reputation correlate to the success of an organization, and to the board’s efforts to sustain long-term corporate objectives.”
The following post comes to us from Michael W. Peregrine, Partner at McDermott Will & Emery, Andrew C. Liazos, head of McDermott’s executive compensation practice, and Timothy J. Cotter, Managing Director at Sullivan, Cotter, and Associates, Inc.
Governing boards should consider compliance-based incentive compensation as a supplement to statutorily mandated “clawback” provisions, and as an alternative to more aggressive proposals to recoup past compensation from “culpable” executives. The general counsel is well situated to support the board in any evaluation of compensation-based executive accountability policies.
There is much public discourse concerning the function of clawback clauses, their structure, and their limitations. Much of this discourse is prompted by recent corporate scandals and associated calls for executive accountability.[1] But there are other reasons. There is extensive discussion in anticipation of rulemaking from the Securities and Exchange Commission that is required under Dodd Frank Section 954.[2] Notable governance commentators and shareholder advocates are encouraging boards to adopt clawback policies that go beyond the statutory requirements.[3] Major public companies are adopting their own versions of clawback policies,[4] including some who are doing so at the behest of investors.[5] In addition, the boards of large, financially sophisticated nonprofit corporations are considering clawback policies as a demonstration of corporate responsibility.[6] Indeed, how best to establish a “clawback” policy continues to be a hot topic!
The French data protection authority has extended the scope of whistleblowing protections to employment and discrimination claims.
Click here to read the full article.
Subscribe
