Episode 286 -- Matt Stankiewicz on the Ripple Decision and Celsius CEO Indictment
Blue Sky Laws: Defending State-Level Securities Violations
The Justice Insiders: The Administrative State is Not Your Friend - A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein
Four Decision Points in SEC Securities Investigations
Crypto Enforcement Is Here, and Always Has Been
Cryptocurrency: The Regulator’s Perspective
Investment Management Roundtable Discussion – Regulatory and Enforcement Update
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that proving an employer’s retaliatory intent is not required for whistleblowers seeking protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 445 (2024),...more
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC holding that whistleblowers are not required to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. ___(2024), a case involving a former UBS employee’s claim that he was terminated for making an internal report...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al. (February 8, 2024). The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms an...more
Last week in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who sued his former employer for retaliatory termination did not need to prove a retaliatory intent behind the decision. Murray v. UBS...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion confirming that a whistleblower does not need to show their employer’s actions were made with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the...more
The Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on February 8, 2024, when it issued its opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, holding that a whistleblower need not prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent” in...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, the case arose after Trevor Murray, a research strategist for UBS, was fired shortly after reporting to his direct supervisor that he had been "improperly pressured" to "skew" business...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, concluding there is no implicit “retaliatory intent” requirement for whistleblower claims brought under the...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, issued a decision that expands the ability of whistleblowers to seek anti-retaliation protections under federal whistleblower laws....more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently unanimously reversed the 2nd Circuit’s ruling on an employee asserting a retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). Now, employees asserting a retaliation claim...more
Executive Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a whistleblower under the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) is not required to prove the employer acted with retaliatory intent to prevail on a whistleblower claim....more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that whistleblowers have a lower hurdle to clear to maintain their retaliation claims, even when they are terminated as a part of a company reorganization. The unanimous decision...more
2023 was another groundbreaking year for whistleblower litigation and bounty awards. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission shattered records by issuing a $279 million award and continued to actively enforce the...more
The numerous submissions made in response to the requests for comment by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”) highlight that many of the proposed amendments to the whistleblower rules, if...more
ANTICORRUPTION DEVELOPMENTS – U.S. Agencies Decline to Prosecute Teradata for Alleged FCPA Violations – On February 26, 2018, Teradata Corporation, an Ohio-based enterprise software database management company,...more
On February 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in the closely watched whistleblower case Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v Somers. In a unanimous ruling, the Court stated that whistleblowers must report any wrongdoing...more
Resolving a Circuit split, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held last week that an employee must report a securities violation to the Securities and Exchange Commission if he wishes to avail himself of the...more
The US Supreme Court recently resolved a long-standing split amongst the Circuits regarding whether the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) protects both internal and external whistleblowers....more
The Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of SEC whistleblower retaliation provisions. Though the decision limits retaliation actions, employers should continue to avoid conduct that can be interpreted as retaliation...more
On February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) resolved a circuit split on the question of whether the whistleblower anti-retaliation provision in Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform...more
On February 21, 2018, in the case of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided that employees who raise internal complaints about possible violation of securities laws are not...more
On February 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a much anticipated decision in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Paul Somers that the anti-retaliation protections of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection...more
On February 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that employees must report a violation of securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to be entitled to anti-retaliation,...more