On Tuesday, a number of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to be heading towards dismissing UBS Group’s attempt of making the case more challenging for financial whistleblowers to establish claims of retaliation.
Trevor Murray, a former UBS bond strategist, has appealed for his wrongful termination over refusing to produce false research findings and claiming that he was pressurized to carry out the task. The appellate court received arguments from Murray in his appeal.
Murray received $1.7 million as compensation from the Jury, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals situated in New York had reversed the ruling the previous year. According to the Court, the Jury must have been advised that for making USB accountable within the purview of federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) against USB the burden of proving that the corporation took action with the intent of retaliation rests on Murray.
The ruling created a split with at least two other courts of appeal that have stated that it was up to the defendant to proof that there was absence of intention to consider him innocent in the matter concerning SOX.
Even if the matter appears technical, the court’s decision could have an important influence on litigation concerning whistleblowers. A decision in support of UBS could drastically reduce the number of lawsuits with respect to whistleblowers because it is mostly challenging when it comes to plaintiffs to establish the motives of the defendant.
Eugene Scalia of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, the son of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and a previous U.S. labour secretary, who made an appearance before the court for the first time, is representing UBS.
Written by: Divyani Newar
College name: NEF Law College
5th Semester, 3 Year LL.B.
An intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments