SEC
Whistleblower
Attorneys
SEC WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM

Recent Whistleblower Cases Denied

The truth is, of the 4,000 or so submissions the SEC receives each year, the lion’s share never even make it to an investigative team. (Sidebar: our submissions usually do.) Nearly half of those denials didn’t make the cut because the submissions didn’t follow the program rules.

This keeps us awake at night.

Denial Justifications*
Breakdown of justifications cited in 103 denial orders
Ineligible Applicant
0%
Not Original Information
18%
Information Not Voluntarily Provided
1%
Information did not lead to a successful enforcement action
71%
Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
43%
Failed to Report a Securities Violation
6%
Applicant Knowingly Made False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Statements or Representations
2%
None Disclosed
1%
Awards Denied
More in SEC Whistleblower Awards
Facts & Figures

Awards Granted

Claimant 2's application was denied because the Commission concluded that the information he/she provided did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Claimant 3, 4, 5, and 6's applications were denied because the Commission found that they failed to make their submissions in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules, as set forth in Rule 21F-9(a).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). Any information that was provided to the Staff after this date was not deemed voluntary because it followed a request of the Staff. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the information provided did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Information Not Voluntarily Provided

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. Even it it had been properly filed, the Commission concluded that the information provided did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, the claimant was found not to have submitted the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant 1's application was denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Claimant 2's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The SEC whistleblower award claimants did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimants' applications were denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimants' applications were denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. The Commission emphacised that the claimant never provided information directly to the SEC.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. Even it it had been properly filed, the Commission concluded that the information provided did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

Claimants' applications were denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission emphacised that the Staff declared under the penalty of perjury that they didn't rely upon the information provided by the whistleblower. In fact, they had alredy opened an investigation by the time of Claimant 1's submission and Claimant 2's submission was not forwarded to the investigative team.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission emphacised that the Staff declared under the penalty of perjury that they didn't rely upon the information provided by the whistleblower.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission emphacised that the Staff declared under the penalty of perjury that they didn't rely upon the information provided by the whistleblower.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission emphacised that this later information wasn't even provided to the investigative staff.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission emphacised that this later information wasn't even provided to the investigative staff.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. The Commission emphacised that providing information to the FBI does not satisfy its procedural requirements.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. Even it it had been properly filed, the Commission concluded that the information provided did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. Specifically, Claimant failed to submit a Form TCR and make the requisite whistleblower declaration. Additionally, the Commission noted that claimant can't file anonymously, unless represented by legal counsel.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found the information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission emphacised that this later information wasn't even provided to the investigative staff.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. Specifically, Claimant failed to submit a Form TCR and make the requisite whistleblower declaration.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. Specifically, Claimant failed to submit a Form TCR and make the requisite whistleblower declaration.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules, as set forth in Rule 21F-9(a). Even if he/she had, the Commission held that the information was not provided voluntarily because any information claimed to have been provided followed a Commission request. Furthermore, his/her information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Information Not Voluntarily Provided

The SEC whistleblower award claimant provided information to the Commission before July 21, 2010, therefore such information is not considered original under the statute and rules. Furthermore, any information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission emphacised that much of this later information wasn't even provided to the investigative staff or was provided just weeks before the institution of the covered action.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that Claimaint 1's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission also found that Claimant 2 did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notices of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b). And the agency found no extraordinary circumstances to justify a waiver of the filing of the deadline. The Staff also noted that they believed that the tip lacked merit, even if a timely application was filed.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules. Specifically, Claimant failed to submit a Form TCR and make the requisite whistleblower declaration.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

The SEC whistleblower award claimant provided information to the Commission before July 21, 2010, therefore such information is not considered original under the statute and rules. Furthermore, any information provided after that date did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission emphacised that this later information wasn't even provided to the investigative staff.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the claimant was not a whistleblower because he/she did not provide information to the SEC, what was reported to the IRS was not a possible securities violation, and such information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The Commission noted that none of the information provided was forwarded or used by the Staff involved in the investigation or litigation. The Commission also noted that the claimant also did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within 90 calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission also found that one of the claimants was found to have failed to make his/her submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules, specifically Rule 21F-9(a) and Rule 21F-2.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the claimant was not a whistleblower because he/she did not provide information to the SEC, what was reported to the IRS was not a possible securities violation, and such information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The Commission noted that none of the information provided was forwarded or used by the Staff involved in the investigation or litigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). Even if he/she had, the SEC found that the Claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). Even if he/she had, the SEC found that the Claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the claimant was not a whistleblower because he/she did not provide information to the SEC, what was reported to the IRS was not a possible securities violation, and such information did not lead to a successful enforcement action.

  • Failed to Report a Securities Violation
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Information Not Voluntarily Provided

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The Commission also found that one of the claimants was found to have failed to make his/her submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Order denying two out of three claims for an award based on the relevant Covered action. The SEC found that Claimants did not provide information leading to successful enforcement.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

Denial of a joint award claim because Claimants did not provide information leading to the successful enforcement action (3:13-cv-01643, D.Conn.).

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the Claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv).

  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the Claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). It also found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The record didn't support the Claimant's argument that information provided to the Chairman or other authorities was provided or relied upon by the assigned Staff.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, the claimant did not submit information about a possible securities law violation on a Form TCR or through the TCR online portal, as required by Rules 21F-8(a) and 21F-9. Finally, the claimant did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Failed to Report a Securities Violation
  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant failed to submit information about a possible securities violation in the form and manner required by Rule 21F-9(a) and (b).

  • Failed to Report a Securities Violation
  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant failed to submit information about a possible securities violation in the form and manner required by Rule 21F-9(a) and (b).

  • Failed to Report a Securities Violation
  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC found that the information provided by the SEC whistleblower award claimant was not "original" because it was not derived from "independent knowledge" or "independent analysis," as defined by Rule 21F-4(b)(2) and (3).

  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that there was no evidence that the SEC whistleblower award claimant provided information to the SEC about the case, as required by Rule 21F-9(a) or (d).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC found that the 3 SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

One of the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). The SEC also found that both SEC award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The Claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). The SEC also found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the 2 SEC award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the 3 SEC whistleblower award claimants did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b), and a showing of "extraordinary circumstances" to justify waiving this requirement has not been demonstrated.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information relating to a possible securities violation, failed to submit the information in the form and manner required by program rules, and did submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Failed to Report a Securities Violation
  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC found that the 4 SEC award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The Claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). The SEC also found that the SEC award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that all 3 SEC award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that all 6 SEC award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that all 12 SEC award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, one of the claimant's information was deemed not original because it was derived from a third party's court filing. Finally, two other claimants' did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that all 12 SEC award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, one of the claimant's information was deemed not original because it was derived from a third party's court filing. Finally, one other claimants' did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in all four of the cases, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, the information provided was not original because it was derived from publicly available sources, specifically from allegations made in a judicial complaint.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Claimant's allegations of conflicts of interest within the Commission were found not to be substantiated.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants' information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, the SEC found that they did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The Claimant submitted applications for award in 25 seperate Covered Actions. The Commission found that the Claimant had knowingly made false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and representations to the Commission over a course of years. Accordingly, the Claimant was found ineligible for these and all future whistleblower awards.

  • Applicant Knowingly Made False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Statements or Representations

SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in all four of the cases, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • None

The 4 SEC whistleblower award claimants' applications were denied because they were found not to have submitted the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b), and the Claimant failed to demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" warranted waiver of the requirement.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in all four of the cases, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in all four of the cases, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in four of the cases, the information was provided after the enforcement actions were settled. In the fifth case, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. In fact, the tip was never provided to the responsible investigative team.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found no evidence showing that the SEC whistleblower award claimant provided information to the Commission related to the covered action, as required by Rule 21F-9(a) or (d). The Claimant also did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). The Commission found that the Claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Failed to Report a Securities Violation
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, the SEC found that information was not submitted in the form and manner required by program rules.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, the information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, the information provided was found not to be original information because it was not derived from the SEC whistleblower award claimant's independent knowledge or independent analysis.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

SEC found no evidence showing that the SEC whistleblower award claimant provided information to the Commission related to the covered action, as required by Rule 21F-9(a) or (d).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC whistleblower award claimant's application was denied because he/she did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b). Claimant argued for waiver of this requirement because of lack of earlier knowledge of the SEC Whistleblower Program, failure of Claimant's attorney to learn about the program and lack of actual notice of the program requirements and filing deadlines, but the Commission refused to exercise this discretion because it did not find extraordinary circumstances, when analyzing the PennMont factors.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules and that information provided did not lead to the successful enforcement action.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The SEC whistleblower award claimant's application was denied because he/she was found not to have submitted the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b). Claimant argued for waiver of this requirement because of prior engagment with the SEC and lack of earlier knowledge of the SEC Whistleblower Program, but the Commission refused to exercise this discretion because it did not find extraordinary circumstances, when analyzing the PennMont factors.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

The SEC whistleblower award claimant submitted applications for award in 143 seperate Covered Actions. The SEC found that the Claimant had knowingly made false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and representations to the Commission over a course of years. Accordingly, the Claimant was found ineligible for these and all future whistleblower awards.

  • Applicant Knowingly Made False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Statements or Representations

SEC whistleblower award claimant 1's application was denied because the Commission found that he did not provide original information to the Staff after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). Even if it had been provided in a timely manner, it was deemed not to have led to the successful enforcement action. Claimant 2's application was denied because he/she was found not to have submitted the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

The Claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). The Claimant also did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Not Original Information

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). The Claimant also did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Not Original Information

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). The claimant also did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Not Original Information

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). Even if he/she had, the SEC found that the Claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation. The claimant challenged these two propositions, along with the fairness of the proceeding. In a lengthy order, the Commission cites facts and authority in support of its arguments that Dodd-Frank does not apply retroactively, the post Dodd-Frank disclosures to the Commission did not significantly contribute to the success of the enforcement action and denies that the proceeding was not fair.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • Not Original Information

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv).

  • Not Original Information

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv).

  • Not Original Information

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). Even if he/she had, the SEC found that the Claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules
  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action
  • None

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv).

  • Not Original Information

In 51 seperate Covered Actions, the Commission found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

The SEC whistleblower award claimant did not submit the required Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety calendar days of the Notice of Covered Action, as required by Rule 21F-10(b).

  • Form and Manner of Submission/Application Did Not Comply With Program Rules

SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant's information did not lead to a successful enforcement action. The information was deemed not to have caused the Staff to open a new investigation or examination, nor did it significantly contribute to the success of an ongoing investigation.

  • Information Did Not Lead to the Successful Enforcement Action

No information disclosed.

  • None Disclosed
  • None
Thank you for submitting some email to us.