Oral arguments in Lawson v. FMR LLC — the U.S. Supreme Court's first whistleblower case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — seemed to show that most justices won't oppose a somewhat broader interpretation of the law's anti-retaliation provisions.
This article by TELG managing principal R. Scott Oswald was published by Law360 on November 19, 2013. The full article is available at Law360. (Site requires paid subscription.)
Excerpted from:
In oral arguments for the first whistleblower case they have heard under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court quickly locked onto the important issue: How to interpret SOX’s anti-retaliation provisions without gutting the law — or expanding it without limit.
Led by Justice Stephen Breyer, on Nov. 12, 2013, an hour-long discussion paid scant attention to the most extreme formulations of both sides in Lawson v. FMR LLC. Instead, the court seemed to spend its time groping toward a middle ground that would mostly favor employees.
