Episode 379 -- Update on False Claims Act and Customs Evasion Liability
10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending July 19, 2025
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 55 – The From Worse to Worser Edition
Daily Compliance News: July 18, 2025, The Don’t Alter Docs Edition
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
When DEI Meets the FCA: What Employers Need to Know About the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative
FCPA Compliance Report: Stay the Course: Ellen Lafferty on Navigating Anti-Corruption Compliance in 2025
Adventures in Compliance: The Novels – The Hound of the Baskervilles, Introduction and Compliance Lessons Learned
Compliance into the Weeds: Boeing’s New Safety Initiatives and Compliance Reforms
Upping Your Game: Crowd - Sourcing Risk Management Intelligence with AI
10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending June 21, 2025
False Claims Act Insights - Will Recent Leadership Changes Lead to FCA Enforcement Policy Changes?
All Things Investigations: Navigating New DOJ Directives - Declinations, Cooperation, and Whistleblower Programs with Mike DeBernardis and Katherine Taylor
Daily Compliance News: June 16, 2025, The Golden Share Edition
Daily Compliance News: June 13, 2025. The All Boeing Edition
Enforcement Priorities of the Second Trump Administration: The False Claims Act
Episode 372 -- DOJ Applies False Claims Act to Tariff and Trade Violations
FCPA Compliance Report: Revolutionizing Speak Up: Ariel D. Weindling on Enhancing Whistleblower Systems
2 Gurus Talk Compliance: Episode 53 – The AI as a Whistleblower Edition
Hospice Insights Podcast - Still Number One: Healthcare Fraud Remains Central in DOJ’s White Collar Enforcement Plan
While legal analysts focus on landmark Supreme Court decisions each term, equally significant are the cases the Court declines to hear. These certiorari denials often reveal critical jurisprudential trends that shape...more
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that proving an employer’s retaliatory intent is not required for whistleblowers seeking protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 445 (2024),...more
In this issue of Employment Flash: the new DOL rule on independent contractors, SCOTUS’s unanimous Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower ruling, plus labor law developments in California, Delaware, D.C., New York, the EU, Germany and...more
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month....more
This is the fifth in our 2024 Year in Preview series examining important trends in white collar law and investigations in the coming year. We will be posting further installments in the series throughout the next several...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, holding that whistleblowers asserting retaliation claims under Sarbanes-Oxley must prove protected activity was a contributing factor...more
Welcome to this edition of the FP Snapshot on workplace safety, where we take a quick snapshot look at a recent significant workplace law development that affects your safety and health programs. This edition is devoted to...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 478566 (2024), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. ___(2024), a case involving a former UBS employee’s claim that he was terminated for making an internal report...more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that employers can violate whistleblower protection statutes without evidence establishing retaliatory...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al. (February 8, 2024). The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms an...more
The Background: In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., et al. ("Murray") that an employee suing his employer under the anti-retaliation provisions of...more
Last week in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who sued his former employer for retaliatory termination did not need to prove a retaliatory intent behind the decision. Murray v. UBS...more
The US Supreme Court ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC that whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) need not prove retaliatory intent. This ruling is consistent with current precedent for Energy Reorganization...more
Outlined in part one of our series—SCOTUS Clarifies Whistleblower Claims Standard under Sarbanes Oxley—the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal court of appeals decision, resolving a recent federal appeals court split...more
On Feb. 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that plaintiffs bringing whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 do not need to prove...more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for proving causation under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the “Act”), easing the burden of proof employees...more
On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC1 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion confirming that a whistleblower does not need to show their employer’s actions were made with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, issued a decision that expands the ability of whistleblowers to seek anti-retaliation protections under federal whistleblower laws....more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that whistleblower-plaintiffs need not prove that adverse employment actions were motivated by their employer’s retaliatory intent to obtain...more
The Supreme Court just rejected an employer’s argument that a whistleblower needs to show the employer acted with retaliatory intent to prove retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), a federal law that protects...more
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660, holding that whistleblowers do not need to establish retaliatory intent on the part of their employers in order to prove a claim...more
Does a fired whistleblower need to show their employer acted with retaliatory intent to prove retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)? The Supreme Court has been asked to review the standard of proof in such cases –...more