(Bloomberg) -- The US Supreme Court considered reinstating a $900,000 jury verdict won by a fired UBS Group AG research strategist in a case that could make it easier for whistleblowers to win suits claiming retaliation under a federal investor-protection law.
Most Read from Bloomberg
Israel Latest: Top US General Warns Iran to Stay Out of Conflict
Hamas Got Around Israel’s Surveillance Prowess by Going Dark
Israel Latest: Biden Assures Netanyahu of US Support in Call
Brutality of Surprise Attack Unites Israel Around One Goal: Crush Hamas
UBS contends that federal law requires whistleblowers to prove they were the victims of intentional retaliation. But that argument drew skepticism from several justices, including Neil Gorsuch, who questioned whether it could be squared with the language of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
“I don’t see ‘retaliation’ in the statute,” Gorsuch told UBS’s lawyer, Eugene Scalia. “You’re asking me to read things into a statute that aren’t there.”
Scalia is the son of Antonin Scalia, the conservative Supreme Court justice who died in 2016.
Employees have filed more than 750 Sarbanes-Oxley claims with the Labor Department over the past six years. The law was enacted following the corporate fraud that toppled Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc.
The case centers on Trevor Murray, who claims he was fired for refusing to skew his reports to help the company’s business strategies. A federal appeals...
THE Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has claimed that a viral comment linked to an X account attributed to its chairman was posted before the original pro-APC post it was respondin...