At its July hearing session, the Panel rejected a former executive/whisteblower's opposition to the transfer of his action to an existing securities litigation MDL proceeding that had arisen from allegedly inaccurate statements concerning the company's operational and financial condition and the propriety of its public filings. To reach its decision, the Panel found:
- The whistleblower action alleging improper dismissal and retaliation for expressing concerns regarding the company "clearly falls within the MDL's ambit, because it involves allegations related to . . . liquidity and defendants' efforts to conceal the true state of that liquidity in the months preceding the company's bankruptcy."
- The presence of employment-related claims in the whistleblower action did not warrant exclusion from the securities MDL proceeding because "Section 1407 does not require a complete identity or even majority of common factual and legal issues." Two other whistleblower actions were already part of the MDL proceeding.
- The argument that the whistleblower action would take longer to resolve in the MDL proceeding did not support denial of transfer.
» In re SunEdison, Inc. Securities Litig. (MDL No. 2742)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
