Carnero v. Boston Scientific Corporation Facts Carnero is a citizen of Argentina and a resident in Brazil.

Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Natick !assachusetts. BSC "anufactures "edical equip"ent and has operations in "an# countries throughout the world. $n %&&' Carnero accepted e"plo#"ent with a BSC su(sidiar# in Argentina Boston Scientific Argentina (BSA). )is e"plo#"ent agree"ent entered into in Argentina although negotiated in *arious countries including the +nited States pro*ided that his place of work was BSA,s headquarters and that the e"plo#"ent agree"ent was go*erned (# the laws of Argentina. $n -..% he took an assign"ent as Countr# !anager for a Brazilian su(sidiar# of BSC Boston Scientific Do Brasil (BSB) while still e"plo#ed (# BSA. Carnero was ter"inated fro" BSB in August -..- and fro" BSA in April -../ allegedl# in retaliation for reporting to super*isors at BSC that BSC,s Argentinian and Brazilian co"panies as well as other foreign co"panies were engaged in accounting "isconduct (# inter alia, i"properl# inflating sales figures. $n April -../ Carnero pursued a 0conciliation proceeding0 in Argentina a prerequisite to filing suit in an Argentinian court for statutor# ter"ination (enefits fro" BSC and BSA. Argentinian e"plo#ees ter"inated without cause are entitled to such (enefits. An Argentinian "ediator held a hearing with BSC BSA and Carnero (ut a settle"ent could not (e reached. 1n 2une -. -../ BSC and BSA (rought their own clai"s in the Argentinian court alleging inter alia, defa"ation (ased on Carnero,s clai"s of (illing irregularities. 1n 2ul# - -../ Carnero filed a co"plaint against BSC with the +nited States %%3Depart"ent of 4a(or (0D140) pursuant to the whistle(lower protection pro*ision contained in contained in 5itle 6$$$ Section 7.8 of the Sar(anes91:le# Act of -..- %7 +.S.C. ; %<%=A (-..<). 1n August 7 -../ Carnero filed a co"plaint against BSC in the +nited States District Court for the District of !assachusetts (ased on di*ersit# of citizenship under -7 +.S.C. ; %//-(a)(-) (%&&/ > Supp.-..<) asserting state law clai"s including (reach of contract and retaliator# ter"ination. BSC "o*ed to dis"iss (oth co"plaints. 5he district court dis"issed Carnero,s state law clai"s finding that Carnero 0had no contact with the defendant in !assachusetts0 and that defendant did not 0in an# wa# direct or control0 his e"plo#"ent. $ssues? %. @hether or not the whistle(lower pro*ision of the Act has e:traterritorial effect. -. @hether or not Carnero "a# clai" under !assachusetts law for (reach of contract and retaliator# ter"ination. Auling $t was held that %7 +.S.C. Sect. %<%=A does not reflect the necessar# clear e:pression of congressional intent to e:tend its reach (e#ond the nationBs (orders. @here a statute is silent as to its territorial reach and no contrar# congressional intent clearl# appears there is generall# a presu"ption against its e:traterritorial application. 5he presu"ption can (e o*erco"e onl# if there is an 03affir"ati*e intention of the Congress clearl# e:pressed. 5he presu"ption ser*es at least two purposes. $t protects against 0unintended clashes (etween our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord 0 and it reflects the notion that when Congress legislates it 03is pri"aril# concerned with do"estic conditions. 1n Carnero,s clai"s under !assachusetts law for a"ong other things (reach of contract and retaliator# ter"ination 5he district court (ased the dis"issal on two factual findings? (%) Carnero Chad no contact with the defendant in !assachusetts B and (-) Cdefendant did not in an# wa# direct or control plaintiff in his e"plo#"ent. Carnero argues that these findings are not supported (# the record. 5he court affir"ed the district courtBs Dudg"ent (ased on an alternati*e ground presented in BSCBs "otion to dis"iss the co"plaint? that BSA is an indispensa(le part# under Fed. A. Ci*. E. %& and could not (e Doined without destro#ing the courtBs di*ersit# Durisdiction.F