On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Corporate Whistleblowing in 2017

Released on: Jul. 11, 2017
Running Time: 03:28:46

This program will offer expert insights into recent whistleblower developments that have shaped the current risk landscape in this rapidly evolving area.  Leading whistleblower law experts, including current and former regulators, will provide in-depth perspectives on recent regulatory and legal developments, including what direction the federal whistleblower protection programs will likely take under the new administration, what to expect in case law and regulatory enforcement developments in the  coming year, best practices in responding to whistleblower reports, and key ethical considerations in conducting internal investigations of issues raised by whistleblowers.

You will learn:

  • Current priorities and agendas of the SEC, CFTC, and Department of Labor’s whistleblower programs
  • Trends and issues the private  plaintiff’s whistleblower bar are seeing
  • Best ethical practices for conducting internal investigations of whistleblower reports 

    Special Feature:

  • Earn up to one full hour of Ethics credit

General counsel/Chief legal officers, in house regulatory, employment and litigation lawyers, compliance and internal audit professionals, human resources professionals and representatives from the employment, white collar, securities and regulatory enforcement and whistleblower bars will benefit from this program.

Lecture Topics [Total time 03:28:46]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:08:36]
    Michael Delikat
  • Legal Developments in the Whistleblower Space [01:17:15]
    Jane A. Norberg, Renee B. Phillips, Christopher Ehrman, Jason Zuckerman, Teri M. Wigger
  • Whistleblowers’ Bar: Current Trends and Perspectives [01:00:18]
    Renee B. Phillips, Michael Delikat, Debra S. Katz, Jordan A. Thomas, Sean X. McKessy, Thad M. Guyer
  • Internal and Regulatory Investigations of Whistleblower Reports: Ethical Considerations [01:02:37]
    Teri M. Wigger, Sarah E. Bouchard, Eugene Scalia, Steven J. Pearlman, Arian June

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Corporate Whistleblowing in the Sarbanes-Oxley/Dodd-Frank Era (April 13, 2017)
    Michael Delikat, Renee Phillips
  • United States Department of Labor, Memorandum for Regional Administrators, Whistleblower Program Managers, from Eric S. Harbin, Acting Director, Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, Re: Clarification of the Investigative Standard for OSHA Whistleblower Investigations (April 20, 2015)
    Teri M. Wigger
  • United States Department of Labor, Memorandum for Regional Administrators, Whistleblower Program Managers, from Maryann Garrahan, Director, Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, Re: New Policy Guidelines for Approving Settlement Agreements in Whistleblower Cases (August 23, 2016)
    Teri M. Wigger
  • United States Department of Labor, Sample Standard OSHA Settlement Agreement
    Teri M. Wigger
  • United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs (DWPP), Whistleblower Statutes Desk Aid (Updated February 27, 2017) (Chart)
    Teri M. Wigger
  • Whistleblowers’ Bar: Current Trends and Perspectives
    Jason Zuckerman
  • Debra S. Katz, David J. Marshall, and Lisa J. Banks, Whistleblowers’ Bar: Current Trends and Perspectives from Plaintiffs’ Counsel (April 13, 2017)
    Debra S. Katz
  • SEC Whistleblower Program Handbook
    Jordan A. Thomas
  • Interpretation of the SEC’s Whistleblower Rules Under Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Release No. 34-75592, 17 C.F.R. Part 241 (August 4, 2015)
    Jordan A. Thomas
  • The Limitations of Corporate Compliance, N.Y.L.J., November 7, 2011
    Jordan A. Thomas
  • Jordan A. Thomas and Tom Devine, Wall Street’s New Enforcers Aim to Muzzle Whistleblowers, N.Y. Times: Deal Book (July 21, 2014)
    Jordan A. Thomas
  • Lynn Stout and Jordan A. Thomas, Column: How Wall Street Creates Criminals (September 4, 2012) (publication version available at http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-09-04/wall-street-scandalcrim/57585822/1)
    Jordan A. Thomas
  • Richard Moberly, Jordan A. Thomas and Jason Zuckerman, De Facto Gag Clauses: The Legality of Employment Agreements That Undermine Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provisions, 30 A.B.A. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 1, Ch.87 (Fall 2014)
    Jordan A. Thomas
  • U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2016 Annual Report to Congress on the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Program
    Jordan A. Thomas
  • Ann Tenbrunsel and Jordan A. Thomas, The Street, The Bull and The Crisis: A Survey of the US & UK Financial Services Industry, Presented by The University of Notre Dame and Labaton Sucharow LLP (May 2015)
    Jordan A. Thomas
  • “The Legacy of the Obama ARB: Jurisdiction and Protected Activity Under Sylvester v. Paraxel”
    Thad M. Guyer
  • Arian M. June, Anna Moody and Mark D. Flinn, How Companies Can Protect Themselves from Attorney Whistleblowers: Lessons from Bio-Rad (Prepared April 17, 2017)
    Arian M. June
  • Sarah E. Bouchard and Margaret M. McDowell, Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations: Addressing Concerns of the Whistleblower
    Sarah E. Bouchard
  • Steven J. Pearlman and Alex C. Weinstein, Ethical Dilemmas in Whistleblower Investigations
    Steven J. Pearlman
  • Eugene Scalia and Alyssa Markenson, Ethical Considerations in Internal “Whistleblower” Investigations
    Eugene Scalia
  • Halliburton, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, No. 13-60323, 771 F.3d (5th Cir. 2014)
    Eugene Scalia
  • U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Memorandum Re: Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing, from Sally Quillian Yates, Deputy Attorney General (September 9, 2015)
    Eugene Scalia

Presentation Material


  • Recent Developments in Whistleblower Protection Law
    Jason Zuckerman
  • Self-Help Discovery in Whistleblower Matters
    Steven J. Pearlman
Chairperson(s)
Michael Delikat ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Speaker(s)
Sarah E. Bouchard ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Christopher Ehrman ~ Director, Whistleblower Office, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Thad M. Guyer ~ T.M. Guyer Ayers & Friends, P.C.
Arian June ~ Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Debra S. Katz ~ Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP
Sean X. McKessy ~ Phillips & Cohen LLP
Jane A. Norberg ~ Chief, Office of the Whistleblower, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Steven J. Pearlman ~ Proskauer Rose LLP
Renee B. Phillips ~ Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Eugene Scalia ~ Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Jordan A. Thomas ~ Labaton Sucharow LLP
Teri M. Wigger ~ Assistant Regional Administrator, Whistleblower Protections Program , U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA
Jason Zuckerman ~ Zuckerman Law
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Related Items

Live Programs  Live Programs

Corporate Whistleblowing in 2018 (New York, NY) Jun. 26, 2018

Handbook  Course Handbook Archive

Corporate Whistleblowing in 2018  
Corporate Whistleblowing in 2017 Michael Delikat, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
 
Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.