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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6/07/2017 | 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). |
|
|
| 5/04/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 5/02/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 2/18/2017 | 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. |
|
|
| 12/19/2016 | 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). |
|
|
| 11/07/2016 | 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). |
|
|
| 11/07/2016 | 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). |
|
|
| 10/21/2016 | 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). |
|
|
| 9/26/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 8/14/2016 | 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). |
|