<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SOX Whistleblowers Protection</title>
	<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com</link>
	<description>Help and information for SOX whistleblowers</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:53:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>SOX Whistleblower Sues Fidelity in Boston Federal Court</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblower-sues-fidelity-in-boston-federal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblower-sues-fidelity-in-boston-federal-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:53:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[SOX WhistleBlowing in the news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblower-sues-fidelity-in-boston-federal-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ As reported by Financial News Online, and Mutual Fund Wire  a  former employee of Fidelity Investments in the US is suing the company for wrongful discharge, including violations of Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  The former employee alleges that she was harassed and forced out after bringing attention to problems in the way Fidelity reports profitability figures [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblower-sues-fidelity-in-boston-federal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New German Guideline Help Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sox-whistleblowers-help/new-german-guideline-help-sarbanes-oxley-whistleblowers/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sox-whistleblowers-help/new-german-guideline-help-sarbanes-oxley-whistleblowers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[SOX Whistleblowers Help]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sox-whistleblowers-help/new-german-guideline-help-sarbanes-oxley-whistleblowers/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The latest step in the development of a whistleblower format for companies operating in the E.U. has come from Germany.  German authorities have issued new whistleblower guidelines, which allow U.S. companies to implement Sarbanes-Oxley hotline compliance for U.S. public companies, and for privately held companies with branches in Germany.
The regional German data protection authorities’ working group, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sox-whistleblowers-help/new-german-guideline-help-sarbanes-oxley-whistleblowers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SOX Whistleblower Protection: Protected Activity; Lucky Number 13</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblower-protection-protected-activity-lucky-number-13/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblower-protection-protected-activity-lucky-number-13/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Sox Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblower-protection-protected-activity-lucky-number-13/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PROTECTED ACTIVITY; CHEMIST&#8217;S DISCLOSURE OF PURPORTED VIOLATION OF FDA CONSENT DECREE, FDA AND EU REGULATIONS, AND OTHER DRUG MANUFACTURING GUIDELINES FOUND NOT PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER SOX 
In Portes v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 06-CV-2689 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2007), the court accepted as true (for purposes of the motion) that the terminated employee was a chemist, and the principle [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblower-protection-protected-activity-lucky-number-13/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SOX Whistleblowers Protection: Protected Activity Discussion; Part 12</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblowers-protection-protected-activity-discussion-part-12/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblowers-protection-protected-activity-discussion-part-12/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Sox Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblowers-protection-protected-activity-discussion-part-12/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PROTECTED ACTIVITY; CASE INVOLVING IN-HOUSE PATENT COUNSEL.
In Van Asdale v. International Game, Technology, No. 3:04-CV-00703-RAM (D.Nev. June 13, 2007), the Magistrate  concluded that under SOX, an employee&#8217;s act must implicate securities fraud definitively and specifically. The court found that &#8220;implicate&#8221; in this context does not mean merely to &#8220;imply,&#8221; but &#8220;&#8216;to bring into intimate or incriminating [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblowers-protection-protected-activity-discussion-part-12/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sox Whistleblowers Protection: Protected Activity, Part 11</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sox-whistleblowers/sox-whistleblowers-protection-protected-activity-part-11/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sox-whistleblowers/sox-whistleblowers-protection-protected-activity-part-11/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[SOX Whistleblowers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sox-whistleblowers/sox-whistleblowers-protection-protected-activity-part-11/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SOX WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTED ACTIVITY.
 A STOCK ANALYST&#8217;S STATEMENT AT A REVIEW MEETING THAT SHE WOULD REFUSE TO CHANGE A STOCK RATING WAS NOT PROTECTED ACTIVITY WHERE SHE DID NOT VOICE A BELIEF THAT A CHANGE WOULD VIOLATE A SECURITIES LAW AND SHE WAS NOT DIRECTED TO CHANGE THE RATING
In Getman v. Administrative Review Board, USDOL, No. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sox-whistleblowers/sox-whistleblowers-protection-protected-activity-part-11/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sox Whistleblowers Need &#8220;Qui Tam&#8221; Rewards as Added Incentive</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblowers-need-qui-tam-rewards-as-added-incentive/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblowers-need-qui-tam-rewards-as-added-incentive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 04:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[SOX WhistleBlowing in the news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblowers-need-qui-tam-rewards-as-added-incentive/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SOX Whistleblowers Protection gives its total support to the post in Work/ Life/Law 3.0   by whistle blowing scholar Terry Morehead Dworkin.
Dworkin point is that Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers should be given the same incentives as  given in the False Claims Act.  He points to the recent 671 million dollar award against Merck. 
Dworkin writes:
&#8220;The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) relies on whistleblowers to help enforce [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblowers-need-qui-tam-rewards-as-added-incentive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PROVEN FACT: SOX Whistleblowers Expose Corporate Fraud</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/proven-fact-sox-whistleblowers-expose-corporate-fraud/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/proven-fact-sox-whistleblowers-expose-corporate-fraud/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:04:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[SOX WhistleBlowing in the news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/proven-fact-sox-whistleblowers-expose-corporate-fraud/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kudos right back to  SoxFirst for its recent discussion of  an interesting paper  written by Adair Morse and Luigi Zingales and Alexander Dyck  entitled Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?  As SoxFirst  summarizes, the article  discusses an indepth study of all reported cases of corporate fraud in companies with more that 750 million dollars in assets between 1996 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/proven-fact-sox-whistleblowers-expose-corporate-fraud/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SOX Whistleblowers Protection: Proteceted Activity Discussion, Part 10</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblowers-protection-proteceted-activity-discussion-part-10/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblowers-protection-proteceted-activity-discussion-part-10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Sox Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblowers-protection-proteceted-activity-discussion-part-10/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PROTECTED ACTIVITY; REASONABLENESS OF PLAINTIFF&#8217;S BELIEF IN ACCOUNTING VIOLATION; DEFENDANT&#8217;S INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AS A RESULT 
In Johnson v. Stein Mart, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-00341 (M.D.Fla. June 20, 2007)  the Employee Plaintiff had been hired as a Buyer at the Defendant&#8217;s corporate headquarters, and was later promoted to be a Planner, in which capacity she complained to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/sox-whistleblowers-protection-proteceted-activity-discussion-part-10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SOX Whistleblowers: A Compliment to Capitalism</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblowers-a-compliment-to-capitalism/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblowers-a-compliment-to-capitalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[SOX WhistleBlowing in the news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblowers-a-compliment-to-capitalism/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent City Journal article, Nicole Gelinas, a City Journal contributing editor and the Searle Freedom Trust Fellow at the Manhattan Institute,  is overly critical of Sarbanes-Oxley.  Her article entitled Criminalizing Capitalism  warns investors not to rely upon agency regulation and/or criminal prosecutors to protect their investments.  Ms. Gelinas writes:
 &#8221;Criminalizing bad internal controls ignores another big problem. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/soxwhistleblowingnews/sox-whistleblowers-a-compliment-to-capitalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent Federal Court Ruling says SOX Whistleblowers Protections Help Employee Outside the US</title>
		<link>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/recent-federal-court-ruling-says-sox-whistleblowers-protections-help-employee-outside-the-us/</link>
		<comments>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/recent-federal-court-ruling-says-sox-whistleblowers-protections-help-employee-outside-the-us/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:19:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Sox Cases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/recent-federal-court-ruling-says-sox-whistleblowers-protections-help-employee-outside-the-us/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[O&#8217;Mahony v. Accenture 
 A New York Federal Judge has found that a former senior employee of a global consulting firm who was stationed in Paris can sue for damages under the whistleblower protection provision of Sarbanes-Oxley.Rosemary O&#8217;Mahony, a British citizen who worked for Accenture in France for 14 years, claimed the company demoted her after she [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://whistleblowersprotection.com/2008/sarbanes-oxley-act-cases/recent-federal-court-ruling-says-sox-whistleblowers-protections-help-employee-outside-the-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
