It is ethical for Dodd-Frank Act (2012) to reward people who use the whistle-blower hotline. For example, it rewards individuals more than $1 million for using the whistleblower hotline and this represents between 10 and 30% of the total monetary sanctions. From the potential whistle-blower’s perspective, it is ethical to make monetary awards for those who eligibly provide original information that can enable the organization to recover at least $1 million. Whistle-blowers have developed much interest in the Dodd-Frank by reporting to financial regulators and this has replaced the previously weak existing regimes regarding discretionary awards. Many of the whistleblowers have filled the gap by leveraging the FCA financial incentives to avoid possible fraud in all sectors of the federal government. For instance, the SEC’s discretionary reward programs rewarded only five whistleblowers with $159,537. This meant capping awards at only 10% of the mandatory awards. However, since the inception of the Dodd-Frank 2012, whistleblowers have benefited from 17 awards worth more than $50 million. Therefore, whistleblowers have appreciated the ethical practices inherent in the Dodd-Frank (2012), which has increased the number of payouts. Additionally, the whistleblowers have benefited from ideal protection from employers with ill-mannered intentions. Additionally, the Act provides them with alternative causes of actions to ensure further protection of whistleblowers from possible discharge or discrimination staged by the employers contrary to the provisions of the Dodd-Frank.
The Dodd-Frank Act (2012) provides executive compensation to shareholders and this maintains ethical practices in every organization. For example, the Act requires a say-on-pay reform that compels the management to incorporate a separate non-binding resolution of the shareholder vote to ensure that the executive compensation of the company promptly approved. The approval is usually done by disclosing a proxy statement and it allows shareholders to choose to have a say-on-pay vote that is based on either a couple of years or after every three years rather than annually. Therefore, shareholders find great importance in the Act since their votes are not binding on the board of directors of the organization. Additionally, the Act ethically incorporates the say-on-golden parachutes that address house bull’s requirements. This implies the assets of the organization that specifically belong to the shareholder must include disclosure agreements and a separate nonbinding resolution. This permits shareholders’ votes to approve the agreements although this is subject to change in case of previous say-on-pay requirements.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Finally, the Dodd-Frank (2012) promotes ethics in government actions by clarifying the degree to which liability for aiders and abettors of security violations apply. This helps the government to initiate enforcement actions against individuals who either deliberately or recklessly avail significant assistance to the violations. This means that the Act ensures clarity and it does not involve creating other private rights of actions; hence, it promotes transparency and justice in all American organizations that are subject to its provisions. The act applies equally to anyone who abets violations of federal securities laws. Also, the government can use the Act to strengthen the SEC’s enforcement powers. For example, it can achieve this by imposing financial penalties against the offenders under special conditions. It can as well diversify the jurisdiction of the federal court by permitting SEC to take enforcement actions outside the US if that can result in any foreseeable impacts. Therefore, the act generally provides comprehensive ethics and ensures compliance among organizations providing financial solutions. The ethics and compliance training practices including confidential as well as hotlines help those organizations to meet regulatory and reporting needs.
