The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a landmark whistleblower case Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, in which the court was asked to consider whether publicly traded companies can discriminate against employees who report wrongdoing within the company.
Back in 2011, Trevor Murray joined UBS’s commercial mortgage-backed securities department. Adhering to Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, Murray was obligated to confirm the authenticity and independence of his financial reports. However, during his tenure, Murray made allegations against certain UBS senior figures, asserting they inappropriately influenced him to distort his reports. Murray raised concerns with the practice. When he was later dismissed from the company, Murray believed it to be retaliation for raising his concerns in the first place.
Murray took legal action in 2014, accusing UBS of retaliatory termination in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act‘s whistleblower protections. This act is designed to shield whistleblowers from retribution when they unveil potential legal breaches within publicly traded companies. The core issue before the US Supreme Court on Tuesday dealt with how the act should be interpreted, particularly regarding who bears the burden of proof. Does the whistleblower need to demonstrate the employer’s “retaliatory intent.”
The federal district court originally ruled in favor of Murray. However, UBS challenged this, asserting that the jury should have been...
by Lowell Here are a few international, national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Tuesday, April 21. Clean energy generation exceeded rise in global electricity demand i...