This is an update on our previous blog posts regarding the Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc. case. We previously reported in October 2017 and March 2017 on a whistleblower litigation brought by Charles Erhart, a former Bank of Internet Holding, Inc. (Bofl) internal auditor. In late 2018, the parties filed cross-motions for judgement on the … Continue Reading
Search Results for: Erhart
Update on BofI Whistleblower Litigation
We previously reported in March and last October on a whistleblower litigation brought by Charles Erhart, a former Bank of Internet Holding, Inc. (BofI) internal auditor. On December 3, 2015, in a separate action, the shareholders of BofI brought a derivative suit, based in part on the facts of the whistleblower case, claiming BofI’s board of directors … Continue Reading
UPDATE: California Federal Court Permits Former Bank Internal Auditor’s Whistleblower Claims to Proceed
A California federal court—in Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14755, Case No. 15-cv-02287 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017)—recently denied BofI Federal Bank’s (“BofI’s”) motion to dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claims plead in their former internal auditor Charles Erhart’s amended complaint. The court also denied BofI’s motion as to Erhart’s defamation claim, … Continue Reading
California District Court Addresses Whistleblower’s Self-Help
In Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-02287, (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017), a bank’s internal auditor reported alleged misconduct to federal agencies, engaged in self-help discovery by appropriating the bank’s confidential information, and allegedly widely disseminated such information. When the bank alleged that this conduct violated the parties’ confidentiality agreement and state and … Continue Reading
Whistleblower’s Attorney’s Communications with Regulators Found to be Protected by Work Product Doctrine
A California Magistrate Judge in BofI Federal Bank v. Erhart ruled that a whistleblower’s attorney’s communications sent to federal regulators were protected by the attorney work product doctrine. No. 15-cv-2353 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016). The court concluded that the whistleblower’s attorney had not waived work product protection through her disclosure to third-party regulators, finding that she … Continue Reading
