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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4/27/2015 | SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, in four of the cases, the information was provided after the enforcement actions were settled. In the fifth case, 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. In fact, the tip was never provided to the responsible investigative team. |
|
|
| 2/16/2015 | SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, 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. |
|
|
| 2/13/2015 | SEC found no evidence showing that the SEC whistleblower award claimant provided information to the Commission related to the covered action, as required by Rule 21F-9(a) or (d). The Claimant also did not provide original information to the Commission after July 21, 2010, as required by Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv). The Commission 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. |
|
|
| 2/13/2015 | SEC found that the 2 SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, 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. |
|
|
| 2/13/2015 | SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, 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 information was not submitted in the form and manner required by program rules. |
|
|
| 2/13/2015 | SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, 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. |
|
|
| 2/13/2015 | SEC found that the SEC whistleblower award claimant did not provide information that led to a successful enforcement action. Specifically, 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 found not to be original information because it was not derived from the SEC whistleblower award claimant's independent knowledge or independent analysis. |
|
|
| 8/15/2014 | SEC found no evidence showing that the SEC whistleblower award claimant provided information to the Commission related to the covered action, as required by Rule 21F-9(a) or (d). |
|
|
| 7/23/2014 | SEC whistleblower award claimant's application was denied because he/she 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). Claimant argued for waiver of this requirement because of lack of earlier knowledge of the SEC Whistleblower Program, failure of Claimant's attorney to learn about the program and lack of actual notice of the program requirements and filing deadlines, but the Commission refused to exercise this discretion because it did not find extraordinary circumstances, when analyzing the PennMont factors. |
|
|
| 7/04/2014 | Claimant's application was denied because the Commission found that he/she failed to make their submission in accordance with the form and manner required by the program rules and that information provided did not lead to the successful enforcement action. |
|