Next term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the evidentiary burden of corporate whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as the justices on Monday agreed to hear the appeal of a former UBS employee's whistleblower lawsuit against the investment bank.
The case granted review, Murray v. UBS Securities LLC., deals with a purported split among the federal circuit courts over who has the burden of proof in a whistleblower lawsuit brought under the 2002 act: the employee or the employer? More specifically: Must corporate whistleblowers show at trial that their punishment resulted from their employers' "retaliatory intent"? Or, in order to mount a successful affirmative defense against a whistleblower lawsuit, must employers show that they did not have such intent?
Continue Reading for Free
Register and gain access to:
- Thought leadership on regulatory changes, economic trends, corporate success stories, and tactical solutions for treasurers, CFOs, risk managers, controllers, and other finance professionals
- Informative weekly newsletter featuring news, analysis, real-world cas studies, and other critical content
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical coverage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?
Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Jimmy Hoover
Jimmy Hoover covers the Supreme Court for The National Law Journal. He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter: @JimmyHooverDC.
