On June 28, 2012, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued an opinion in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), LLC, granting a defense motion to dismiss and holding that the Anti-Retaliation Provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank) does not protect whistleblowing activity outside the territorial US.

Khaled Asadi, a former employee of the US-based GE Energy working out of Amman, Jordan, sued for whistleblower retaliation under Dodd-Frank, claiming GE Energy terminated his employment after he notified his supervisors that GE may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and company policy. Dodd-Frank creates a private cause of action for whistleblowers who are subject to retaliatory discharge and allows relief including back pay and reinstatement for whistleblowers who prevail in federal court. The Anti-Retaliation Provision prohibits an employer from retaliating against a whistleblower because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower in making disclosures that are required or protected under the federal securities laws.

In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court held the Anti-Retaliation Provision does not apply extraterritorially, finding:

The court also dismissed Asadi's argument that the Anti-Retaliation Provision extended extraterritorially because his claims were protected or required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) or the FCPA. The court found that the FCPA and SOX provisions cited by Asadi did not provide relief for the alleged retaliation against him. The court did not address whether the Anti-Retaliation Provision would have extraterritorial reach if his claims were based on SOX and FCPA provisions that apply extraterritorially.

Although this case does not create binding legal precedent, other courts may look to it in determining whether employees engaging in whistleblowing activity outside of the US can claim Dodd-Frank's whistleblowing protections and decline to recognize those protections.