ARTICLE
17 March 2013

SEC Inadvertently Produces Whistleblower Complaint, But Then Obtains Protective Relief

PR
Proskauer Rose LLP

Contributor

The world’s leading organizations and global players choose Proskauer to represent them when they need it the most. Our top tier team of star trial attorneys, acclaimed transactional lawyers and exceptionally talented partners and associates have earned a reputation for the relentless pursuit of perfection and a dauntless pursuit of success.
During discovery in an SEC administrative and cease-and-desist proceeding instituted in December 2012 (pursuant to Sections 9(b) and 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940) the SEC Division of Enforcement (DOE) inadvertently produced 11 privileged e-mails to the respondents.
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

During discovery in an SEC administrative and cease-and-desist proceeding instituted in December 2012 (pursuant to Sections 9(b) and 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940)1 the SEC Division of Enforcement (DOE) inadvertently produced 11 privileged e-mails to the respondents.  This is noteworthy because the production included an e-mail forwarding a whistleblower complaint from the SEC Tips, Complaints, and Referrals (TCR) system.

On January 18, 2013, the DOE was so notified by respondents' counsel and requested identification of the potentially privileged e-mails.  On January 23, 2013, the DOE asserted "privilege as to internal e-mails among the staff, as well as any draft or final action memos."  On January 30, 2013, the independent directors disclosed one of the privileged e-mails as an attachment to a "Supplemental Response" to the DOE's Motion to Strike and did not file it under seal.  In response, on February 11, 2013, the DOE filed a Motion for Protective Order Sealing the Independent Directors' Supplemental Response in Opposition to the DOE's Motion to Strike. 

The DOE sought the following relief: a protective order; findings that the 11 e-mails are privileged, that the DOE did not waive any privilege by the inadvertent production, and that the emails are inadmissible; and that respondents return or destroy all copies of the e-mails. 

The ALJ determined that that the e-mails fell into the following categories:

  1. An e-mail forwarding a complaint from the TCR system;
  2. E-mails between SEC staff forwarding information of potential use in the investigation leading to the present matter;
  3. E-mails between SEC staff that evidence deliberations over whether to file the present matter; and
  4. An e-mail between SEC staff about a possible separate administrative proceeding against an entirely different respondent.

By order dated March 5, 2013, the ALJ found the e-mails were privileged and largely irrelevant.   The ALJ thus granted the DOE's motion and ordered that all copies of the e-mails be returned or destroyed and that all documents referring to those e-mails be treated as confidential and be filed under seal. 

This has caught the eye of attorneys representing whistleblowers, as Dodd-Frank imposes limitations on the SEC's ability to disclose information relating to whistleblower reports.

Footnote

1 http://www.whistleblower-defense.com/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whistleblower-defense.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost-new.php&reauth=1

www.proskauer.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More