A Nebraska federal district court, which previously held that a former executive qualified as a “whistleblower” under the Dodd-Frank Act despite having never provided information to the SEC, certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether, for purposes of the anti-retaliation provision, “whistleblower” should be read in the ordinary sense of the word. Bussing v. COR Clearing, LLC, No. 12-cv-238 (D. Neb. July 17, 2014).  According to the court, the interpretation of “whistleblower” is a controlling question of law that will materially advance the termination of the litigation because: (1) the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction is premised on the plaintiff’s Dodd-Frank claim; (2) the plaintiff’s state law claim relies on Dodd-Frank as the source of public policy, which is an element of her state law claim; and (3) appellate review will clarify the damages potentially available to the plaintiff.  The district court refused, however, to stay the proceedings during the pendency of the appeal.