1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Whistleblowing – A Guide to Compliance: Part 4

Whistleblowing – A Guide to Compliance: Part 4

Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.14.21

Crowell & Moring LLP’s 2021 series of client alerts: Whistleblowing – A Guide to Compliance is intended to provide companies with a practical guide to help them comply with their obligations under the EU Whistleblower Directive. Via a monthly alert, Crowell & Moring LLP will explain the different steps that companies need to take for compliance and emphasize various points for consideration. Step #4: Check the steps you should already be taking to ensure your company’s compliance with the EU Whistleblower Directive and the national laws that implement it.

1. Summary of the different steps and action points that can already be undertaken for compliance with the EU Whistleblower Directive

In our previous Alerts in this series, we have drawn attention to some of the steps and action points that companies can already undertake with a view to compliance:

2. Current status of the implementation of the EU Whistleblower Directive in the various EU member states

Click to view this chart.

Conclusion:

From the overview set out above, it can be seen that although some major EU member states are already well advanced in the transposition of the EU Whistleblower Directive (the Netherlands, Sweden), most countries are lagging behind. As a result, there is a definite risk that these countries will not meet the deadline for transposition of the Directive of December 17, 2021. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether the deadline of December 17, 2021 is realistic and whether the European Commission might agree to an extension of this deadline.

  • Action point #4: Monitor the different EU member states’ national implementation of the EU Whistleblower Directive to identify specific national requirements.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....