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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
|