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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/01/2017 | 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. 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. |
|
|
| 9/18/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 9/18/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 9/11/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 9/11/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 9/11/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 9/09/2017 | 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. 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. |
|
|
| 9/09/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 6/20/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 6/10/2017 | Denial of a joint award claim because Claimants did not provide information leading to the successful enforcement action (3:13-cv-01643, D.Conn.). |
|