Newman v. Metro. Life Ins., Co.

1 Citing brief

  1. Melvin Glapion v. Kroll Associates Inc. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss and to Strike Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

    Filed August 11, 2016

    As a result, any alleged contract between Kroll, a private entity, and Tiger Global, another private entity, is insufficient without more to demonstrate that Kroll was a “contractor” of a publicly traded company for purposes of SOX coverage. 8 See also Newman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Civ. Action No. 12-cv-10078, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7271, at *11-16 (D. Mass. Jan. 21, 2015); Lutzeier v. Citigroup, Inc., Case No. 4:14CV183 RLW, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28231 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 9, 2015). 9 The issue of employer/employee coverage under SOX has been decided under both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).