Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Jury Awards Ousted General Counsel Nearly $11 Million in Whistleblower Retaliation Action – Key Takeaways

By Matthew C. Solomon, Arthur H. Kohn, Jonathan S. Kolodner, Kimberly J. Brunelle & David R. Felton on February 24, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Earlier this month, following three hours of deliberation, a California federal jury found that Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. had violated the federal whistleblower provisions by unlawfully firing Sanford Wadler, its former general counsel, and awarded Wadler nearly $11 million in damages.  Wadler had sued his former company under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act and California state law, asserting that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for investigating and reporting to senior management potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in China.  The pre-trial proceedings and three-week trial involved several whistleblower-friendly rulings that promise to generate additional litigation.  Those legal determinations, as well as the jury’s prompt finding of liability and imposition of a substantial award in the face of an aggressive corporate defense, bring to the forefront significant issues relevant to public companies, directors and other corporate stakeholders – not the least of which is the precedent of a general counsel in the role of whistleblower. 

  • Expanded Pool of Defendants. Corporate directors of public companies may be within the scope of the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower provisions, and thus potentially subject to individual liability.
  • Potential Erosion of Privilege. Privileged communications between a whistleblower and the company’s directors, officers, in-house counsel and even outside counsel may be both discoverable and admissible in a whistleblower retaliation action to the extent the whistleblower reasonably believes the communications are necessary to prove his or her claims and defenses.
  • Whistleblower Policy. Companies should be vigilant in ensuring that sufficient policies, procedures and training exist to facilitate internal complaints of potential misconduct.
  • Importance of Personnel Files. Companies should maintain timely and thorough personnel files, including by conducting regular performance evaluations with written documentation, and should record negative performance issues as they occur.
  • Risks of Trial. Companies should pay heed to the evidentiary rulings, broad interpretation of the whistleblower provisions and the jury’s resounding verdict in favor of an attorney-defendant in weighing litigation risk in these kinds of cases.

Please click here to read the full memo.

Photo of Jonathan S. Kolodner Jonathan S. Kolodner

Jonathan S. Kolodner’s practice focuses on criminal, securities, and other enforcement and regulatory matters as well as on complex commercial litigation.

Read more about Jonathan S. KolodnerEmail
  • Posted in:
    Corporate Governance and Compliance
  • Blog:
    Cleary M&A and Corporate Governance Watch
  • Organization:
    Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo