Ahmad v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
2 F. Supp. 3d 491
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Ahmad, a former Morgan Stanley auditor, sues under Dodd-Frank § 78u-6(h) for retaliation for whistleblowing.
- Court divides facts into pre- and post- July 22, 2010, the Dodd-Frank effective date.
- Pre-2010 retaliation alleged include cursing, whitewashing reports, blocking communications, and pressuring to issue incomplete reports, among other actions from 2006–2009.
- Post-2010 activity alleged includes Ahmad’s continuing participation in investigations and, in Oct. 2011, the termination of disability benefits–the sole post-2010 act alleged.
- Court holds § 78u-6(h) is not retroactive and that the post-2010 retaliation claim is not adequately alleged, leading to dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 78u-6(h) retroactive? | Ahmad argues the statute applies to pre-enactment retaliation. | Morgan Stanley contends the presumption against retroactivity applies; § 78u-6(h) creates a new post-enactment cause of action. | Not retroactive; presumption against retroactivity applies. |
| Does the Amended Complaint adequately allege post-2010 retaliation? | § 78u-6(h) covers post-enactment retaliation if alleged. | Only post-2010 act alleged is the disability-benefits termination by the insurer, not Morgan Stanley’s action, and it lacks causal connection. | No adequate post-2010 retaliation allegation; claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (presumption against retroactivity; guides retroactivity analysis)
- Leshinsky v. Telvent GIT, S.A., 873 F. Supp. 2d 582 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (retroactivity considerations in Dodd-Frank context)
- Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA) LLC, 720 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 2013) (statutory interpretation of whistleblower definition under § 78u-6(h))