In the following guest post, Gregory A. Markel, Christopher F. Robertson, and David J. Winkler of the Seyfarth Shaw law firm take a look at the Second Circuit’s August 5, 2022 decision in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC. As the authors discuss, the Second Circuit’s ruling creates a split within the federal judicial circuits on the question of whether or not a SOX whistleblower retaliation claimant must prove retaliatory intent in order to prevail. I would like to thank the authors for allowing me to publish their article as a guest post on this site. I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. Please contact me directly if you would like to submit a guest post. Here is the authors’ article.
Continue Reading Guest Post: The Second Circuit Creates a Circuit Split on Whistleblower Claim Standards

supct2014Since their 2002 enactment, the whistleblower protections in Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act have been presumed to apply only to employees of publicly traded companies. After all, the provisions are entitled “Protection for Employees of Publicly Traded Companies Who Provide Evidence of Fraud.” However, in its March 4, 2014 holding in Lawson v. FMR,

On May 25, 2011, the SEC adopted the final rules implementing the whistleblower provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC declined to propose a rule that would have required whistleblowers to report first through internal corporate compliance programs. However, the SEC adopted changes that are intended to “incentivize whistleblowers to utilize their companies’ internal