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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8/13/2018 | 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. |
|
|
| 7/23/2018 | 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. |
|
|
| 7/11/2018 | 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. Specifically, Claimant failed to submit a Form TCR and make the requisite whistleblower declaration. |
|
|
| 3/27/2018 | 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, 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. |
|
|
| 3/06/2018 | 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 emphasized 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. |
|
|
| 2/11/2018 | SEC found that Claimant 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. |
|
|
| 1/29/2018 | 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. |
|
|
| 1/22/2018 | 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. |
|
|
| 11/01/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 11/01/2017 | 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). |
|