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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9/11/2015 | SEC found that all 12 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. Furthermore, one of the claimant's information was deemed not original because it was derived from a third party's court filing. Finally, two other 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). |
|
|
| 9/11/2015 | SEC found that all 12 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. Furthermore, one of the claimant's information was deemed not original because it was derived from a third party's court filing. Finally, one other 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). |
|
|
| 9/10/2015 | SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in all four of the cases, 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 information provided was not original because it was derived from publicly available sources, specifically from allegations made in a judicial complaint. |
|
|
| 8/24/2015 | 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. Claimant's allegations of conflicts of interest within the Commission were found not to be substantiated. |
|
|
| 8/05/2015 | 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. Furthermore, the SEC found that they 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). |
|
|
| 8/05/2015 | The Claimant submitted applications for award in 25 separate Covered Actions. The Commission found that the Claimant had knowingly made false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements and representations to the Commission over a course of years. Accordingly, the Claimant was found ineligible for these and all future whistleblower awards. |
|
|
| 8/05/2015 | SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in all four of the cases, 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. |
|
|
| 8/05/2015 | The 4 SEC whistleblower award claimants' applications were denied because they were found not to have submitted 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 the Claimant failed to demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" warranted waiver of the requirement. |
|
|
| 5/24/2015 | SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimants did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in all four of the cases, 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. |
|
|
| 5/08/2015 | SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in all four of the cases, 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. |
|