Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Corporate CounselorLJN NewslettersNewsSections

With All Due Deference

By Tom Harrington and R. Scott Oswald
November 02, 2014

In the courtroom, a business transaction, or on a ball field, a loss can also be a victory. Such is the case for employees in the matter of Nielsen v. AECOM Technology, decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2014. Employment law practitioners eagerly awaited the court's decision on the appropriate standard for evaluating whether a plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's (SOX) whistleblower protection provisions. The court found against the plaintiff, an employee of AECOM Technology, but in doing so, became the latest circuit to hold that employees need not “definitively and specifically” identify a particular securities law or category of fraud in order to be protected from retaliation. This is a significant victory for employees.

In this article, we provide a brief history of how the “definitively and specifically” standard came to be, how the tide began to turn against the application of this standard, and what this means for practitioners and employees who blow the whistle on securities fraud.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.