Episode 335 -- The New DOJ Whistleblower Program
#WorkforceWednesday®: New DOJ Whistleblower Program - What Employers Must Know - Employment Law This Week®
DOJ’s New Self-Disclosure Policy and Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program
Innovation in Compliance: Alan Saquella on Navigating The Complexities of Corporate Whistleblowing and Compliance
Common Scenarios Triggering False Claims Act Violations, Part 1: Gov. Contracts and Cybersecurity
The Justice Insiders Podcast: DOJ’s Cacophony of Whistles
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 37 - Vintage or Trendsetting? The SDNY's Whistleblower Pilot Program
Episode 321 -- Review of the EU Whistleblowing Directive wih Alex Cotoia and Daniela Melendez
FCA Uncovered: Mitigating Risk in the Regulatory Spotlight — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Corruption, Crime and Compliance: NAVEX’s 2024 Whistleblower Report — More Reports, Higher Substantiation Rates
False Claims Act Insights - Are We Done Here? The Unique Dynamics of FCA Settlements
Understanding the Whistleblower Pilot Program in the Southern District of New York
Corruption, Crime & Compliance: DOJ Adopts New Whistleblower Bounty Program and Encourages Voluntary Self-Disclosure
False Claims Act Insights - Think You Know Whistleblowers? Think Again.
FCPA Compliance Report: Mary Inman on DOJ Whistleblower Bounty Program
Navigating the SEC's Whistleblower Enforcement Wave: A Guide for Financial Institutions — The Consumer Finance Podcast
How One Hospice Owner Got Convicted of Healthcare Fraud and How You Can Avoid That Fate
Navigating Employment and Separation Agreements: Lessons From Al Pacino's Serpico — Hiring to Firing Podcast
The EU Whistleblowing Directive
#WorkforceWednesday: SEC Cracks Down on Private Companies for Violating Whistleblower Protections - Employment Law This Week®
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
CFTC charges employer with failing to include whistleblower carveout in agreements with employees - Commodities trading firm Trafigura Trading LLC agreed to pay a $55 million fine to settle charges from the Commodity...more
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
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, also referred to as SOX or as Sarbox, is a federal statute that requires specific corporate recordkeeping measures as well as financial reporting. It was passed in the aftermath of several huge...more
On March 1, 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Southern District of New York in Brian La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc, No. 23-448 (2d Cir. 2024)....more
New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws May Protect Out-of-State Applicants - On March 14, the New York Court of Appeals held that out-of-state applicants who seek employment within the State or the City can...more
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“Act” or ”SOX”) shields whistleblowers from retaliation for reporting any wrongdoing by publicly traded companies. Recently, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court evaluated the...more
In a victory for whistleblowers, a unanimous US Supreme Court has held that a whistleblower invoking the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1514A(a) (SOX) is not required to prove that his or her employer acted with...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, holding that whistleblowers asserting retaliation claims under Sarbanes-Oxley must prove protected activity was a contributing factor...more
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Second Circuit’s decision in Murray v. UBS and resolved a circuit split in favor of employees, holding that although intent is an element of a Sarbanes-Oxley...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
Welcome to this edition of the FP Snapshot on workplace safety, where we take a quick snapshot look at a recent significant workplace law development that affects your safety and health programs. This edition is devoted to...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 478566 (2024), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be...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
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that employers can violate whistleblower protection statutes without evidence establishing retaliatory...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
The Background: In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., et al. ("Murray") that an employee suing his employer under the anti-retaliation provisions of...more
In a landmark unanimous ruling late last week, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. 601 U. S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent”...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
The US Supreme Court ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC that whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) need not prove retaliatory intent. This ruling is consistent with current precedent for Energy Reorganization...more
The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous pro-employee ruling that makes it harder for employers to defend whistleblower claims. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, the Court rejected the argument that an employer must have...more
Outlined in part one of our series—SCOTUS Clarifies Whistleblower Claims Standard under Sarbanes Oxley—the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal court of appeals decision, resolving a recent federal appeals court split...more
On Feb. 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that plaintiffs bringing whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 do not need to prove...more
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal court of appeals decision, resolving a relatively recent federal appeals court split regarding the standard for liability in Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claims....more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for proving causation under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the “Act”), easing the burden of proof employees...more