A former UBS employee who initially won a whistleblower case against his former employee saw that jury verdict vacated by a New York federal appeals court.
In 2017, a former UBS senior strategist won a whistle-blower case at trial against UBS in which he claimed that he was illegally fired in 2012 for resisting pressure to write more favorable research assessments, according to a «Bloomberg» (behind paywall) story.
The former strategist who worked in UBS's commercial mortgage-backed securities unit accused managers and co-workers of a «concerted, extended effort» to get him to write «bullish assessments», according to the report, and accused UBS of violating whistle-blower protections contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley act.
He sought $3 million from UBS and eventually won over $900,000 in a trial by jury, and was working in a grocery store for an hourly wage at the time of the trial, according to «Bloomberg».
New Trial Ordered
Despite the loss on appeal, that is not the end of the case. In vacating the verdict, the appeals court said that the judge did not inform the jury that a whistle-blower has to prove intentional retaliation against the employee. A new trial has been ordered by the court.
In vacating the verdict, the appeals court cited the Sarbanes-Oxley act indicating whistle-blowers must «prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer took the adverse employment action against the whistle-blower-employee with retaliatory intent.»
Not a Whistle-Blower
For its part, UBS argued that the plaintiff did not even qualify as a whistle-blower. The termination was part of a broader headcount reduction related to UBS's financial difficulties at the time, suffering a $2 billion loss incurred by a rogue trader.
The appeals court took up the thread of that argument, saying that «UBS offered evidence at the trial of non-retaliatory reasons to terminate» the employee.
The attorney for the former UBS employee did not immediately respond to a request for comment from «Bloomberg».
