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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7/19/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 7/19/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 6/09/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 5/31/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 4/29/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 4/26/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 4/05/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 4/05/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 4/01/2016 | 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. |
|
|
| 3/14/2016 | 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. |
|
