Whistleblower
Advocates
Award Winning Attorneys
The truth is, of the 7,000 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.
| Date | Description | Denial Justification | Key Docs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/11/2018 | 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 emphasized that the claimant never provided information directly to the SEC. |
|
|
| 12/01/2018 | 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 if 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. |
|
|
| 11/06/2018 | 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 emphasized 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 already opened an investigation by the time of Claimant 1's submission and Claimant 2's submission was not forwarded to the investigative team. |
|
|
| 10/30/2018 | 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 emphasized that the Staff declared under the penalty of perjury that they didn't rely upon the information provided by the whistleblower. |
|
|
| 10/30/2018 | 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 emphasized that the Staff declared under the penalty of perjury that they didn't rely upon the information provided by the whistleblower. |
|
|
| 10/03/2018 | 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 emphasized that this later information wasn't even provided to the investigative staff. |
|
|
| 10/03/2018 | 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 emphasized that this later information wasn't even provided to the investigative staff. |
|
|
| 10/03/2018 | 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 emphasized that providing information to the FBI does not satisfy its procedural requirements. |
|
|
| 10/03/2018 | 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 if 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. |
|
|
| 10/03/2018 | 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. |
|