{"id":1095,"date":"2012-07-21T17:55:14","date_gmt":"2012-07-21T17:55:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com\/2012\/07\/doddfrank_whistleblower_protec"},"modified":"2022-03-09T16:20:34","modified_gmt":"2022-03-09T22:20:34","slug":"doddfrank-whistleblower-protec","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/","title":{"rendered":"Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\t\t\t\tThe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 amendment to Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 must be applied retroactively to clarify congressional intent. The amendment specifies that public company subsidiary employees, and not just parent company employees, are protected under the whistleblower statute.  The court, however, did not reach merits of the plaintiff&#8217;s claim regarding his firing and told the parties to turn in a joint letter about what steps will need to happen to get the matter ready for trial.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit, <em>Leshinsky v. Telvent GIT SA,<\/em> involves whistleblower claims made by plaintiff Phillip Leshinsky. He contends that Telvent GIT SA (TLVT), Telvent Caseta Inc., Telvent Farradyne Inc., and a number of individuals wrongly fired him while violating Sarbanes-Oxley&#8217;s whistleblower provisions.  Leshinsky, who was employed by nonpublic subsidiaries of the publicly traded Telvent GIT, contends that he was let go when he expressed opposition to using allegedly fraudulent information to secure a contract with the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority. His claims pertain to a period prior to the 2010 Dodd-Frank amendment.<\/p>\n<p>The court noted that while before the Dodd-Frank amendment, Sarbanes-Oxley only protected employees who worked for publicly traded companies from retaliation when they blew the whistle, the 2010 revision does apply retroactively &#8220;as a clarification of the statute.&#8221; Leshinsky is therefore covered under Section 806.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read_more_link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/\"  title=\"Continue Reading Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court\" class=\"more-link\">Continue Reading \u203a<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 amendment to Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 must be applied retroactively to clarify congressional intent. The amendment specifies that public company subsidiary employees, and not just parent [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3960,3938],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-doddfrank-wall-street-reform-a","category-whistleblowers"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; July 21, 2012<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 amendment &#8212; July 21, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; July 21, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 amendment &#8212; July 21, 2012\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; July 21, 2012","description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 amendment &#8212; July 21, 2012","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; July 21, 2012","twitter_description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 amendment &#8212; July 21, 2012","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/"},"author":{"name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"headline":"Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court","datePublished":"2012-07-21T17:55:14+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:20:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/"},"wordCount":535,"articleSection":["Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act","Whistleblowers"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/","name":"Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court &#8212; Investor Lawyers Blog &#8212; July 21, 2012","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-07-21T17:55:14+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-09T22:20:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431"},"description":"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 amendment &#8212; July 21, 2012","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/doddfrank-whistleblower-protec\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protection Amendment Must Be Applied Retroactively, Said District Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/","name":"Investor Lawyers Blog","description":"Published By Investment Fraud Attorneys \u2014 Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e0240e0754684b69f7d6a7de1b9f1431","name":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c7f8f04990816cd4044977eb59908da8c8d1ae487cc919cebd7027b74a0740a3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shepherd Smith Edwards &amp; Kantas, LLP"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pedX9K-hF","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1095"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1095\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22904,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1095\/revisions\/22904"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.investorlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}