A Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) antiretaliation claim requires a showing of retaliatory intent, a unanimous panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, creating a split of authority with the Fifth and Ninth Circuits.
Trevor Murray was hired as a strategist in UBS Securities’ commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) business. He was responsible for performing research and creating reports about CMBS products, services and transactions that were distributed to UBS current and potential clients.
As a CMBS strategist, Murray was required by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations to certify that his reports were produced independently and that they accurately reflected his own views.
According to Murray, two leaders of the UBS trading desk improperly pressured him to skew his research and to publish reports to support their business strategies. He reported his concerns but was told that “it is very important that you do not alienate your internal client.”
Not long after, Murray was terminated. He sued UBS under the whistleblower protection provision of SOX, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. UBS countered that Murray was terminated due to a shift in strategy prompted by financial difficulties.
At trial, UBS objected to the jury instructions, arguing that they lacked a key element of a § 1514A claim: proof of UBS’ retaliatory intent in taking the adverse employment action. The district court overruled the objection and the case went to the jury, which found UBS...
Eddie Hearn says that he has it in writing that the UFC will not be producing Tyson Fury vs Anthony Joshua in December. This is despite Dana White’s latest claim that he is still promoting the eve...