On May 5, 2020, a Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a report and recommendation recommending that a defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing a SOX whistleblower retaliation claim be granted, finding that the plaintiff had not engaged in protected activity. Wutherich
SOX Whistleblower Decisions
DOL Decision Confirms Extraterritorial Limits of SOX Whistleblower Provision
As we previously reported, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Administrative Review Board has twice held that Sarbanes Oxley’s anti-retaliation provision does not apply extraterritorially. See Hu v. PTC, Inc., ARB Case No. 2017-0068 (Sept. 18, 2019); Perez v. Citigroup, Inc., ARB Case No. 2017-0031 (Sept. 30, 2019). …
SDNY: Directors Not Liable For Whistleblower Claims Under SOX
By Steven J. Pearlman, Pinchos Goldberg & Scott Tan on
On December 9, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that, as a matter of law, directors cannot be held liable under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Zornoza v. Terraform Global Inc., No. 18-cv-11617.
Background
Plaintiff is the former President…
ARB: SOX Whistleblower Provision Does Not Apply Extraterritorially
By Harris Mufson & Allison Martin on
In a pair of recently issued decisions, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) held that Sarbanes Oxley’s anti-retaliation provision does not apply extraterritorially. Hu v. PTC, Inc., ARB Case No. 2017-0068 (Sept. 18, 2019); Perez v. Citigroup, Inc., ARB Case No. 2017-0031 (Sept. 30,…
SDNY Grants Motion to Dismiss SOX Retaliation Claim
By Steven J. Pearlman & Jacob L. Hirsch on
On September 18, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a defendant-employer’s motion to dismiss a SOX whistleblower retaliation claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead protected activity. Tonra v. Kadmon Holdings, Inc., No. 18-cv-9028.
Background
The defendant-employer is a…
District of Rhode Island Dismisses In-House Attorney’s SOX Whistleblower Claim for Lack of Protected Activity
On July 19, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted an employer’s motion to dismiss a SOX whistleblower claim, holding that the Plaintiff—an in-house attorney—failed to allege sufficient facts to show he had an objectively reasonable belief that fraud had occurred. Colesanti v. Dickinson,…
ARB Affirms Dismissal of SOX Whistleblower Claim Against Non-Public Companies
By Steven J. Pearlman & Allison Martin on
The ARB recently affirmed the dismissal of a whistleblower retaliation claim under Section 806 of SOX, holding an employer is not a “contractor” covered by SOX simply because it was a party to a contract with a publicly traded company. Griffo v. Book Dog Books, LLC, Robert William Holdings, LLC …
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Grants Summary Judgment on SOX Claim
On July 18, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment on a SOX whistleblower retaliation claim, holding that the Plaintiff did not have an objectively reasonable belief that the defendant violated any SEC regulation. Reilly v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC, No. …
4th Circuit Vacates ARB SOX Whistleblower Decision for Lack of Protected Activity
On June 13, 2019, the Fourth Circuit overturned the ARB’s decision in favor of a complainant, ruling that the plaintiff had not engaged in protected activity under the SOX whistleblower protection provision by complaining of a company’s use of a mandatory arbitration policy that allegedly was overly broad. Northrop Grumman …
SDNY Dismisses SOX and Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Claims Against Private Company
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment on SOX and Dodd-Frank whistleblower retaliation claims, finding that the alleged whistleblowing did not involve fraud related to a public company. Tellez v. OTG Interactive, LLC, No.