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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/15/2020 | Joint Claimants’ information did not relate to the relevant firm in the Covered Action. |
|
|
| 12/07/2020 | The SEC did not specify a reason for its denial of this Claimant's application. It merely noted the denial and Claimant’s non-appeal, in an Order providing an award to other (joint) Claimants. |
|
|
| 12/07/2020 | The SEC did not specify a reason for its denial of this Claimant's application. It merely noted the denial and Claimant’s non-appeal, in an Order providing an award to a different Claimant. |
|
|
| 11/30/2020 | Claimant’s purported whistleblower tip was submitted on behalf of the wrongdoer company, not in his/her individual capacity. Thus, Claimant was not a “whistleblower” under program rules. |
|
|
| 11/13/2020 | The SEC did not specify a reason for the denials of awards to three Claimants, who did not appeal. |
|
|
| 11/13/2020 | Three Claimants were refused awards. The tips provided by two of them were already known to the SEC or did not relate in a significant way to the Covered Action. The third never communicated with SEC investigative staff and did not provide any impactful information. |
|
|
| 11/13/2020 | Claimant’s tip was already known to the SEC or did not relate in a significant way to the Covered Action. |
|
|
| 10/30/2020 | Two Claimants were denied an award. One’s tip was not “original information” because it was derived exclusively from publicly available information, and the other’s was not received or considered by the SEC’s investigative staff. |
|
|
| 10/30/2020 | The SEC found that Claimant did not provide “original information” because the tip was derived exclusively from publicly available information, and was submitted prior to the founding of the whistleblower program. Also, Claimant was deemed not a “whistleblower” for failure to submit the tip in the form and manner required by the program. |
|
|
| 10/29/2020 | Six (6) Claimants were denied awards. Four (4) did not appeal. The information from one of the remaining two could not be substantiated, and the other remaining Claimant’s information did not relate to securities violations alleged in the Covered Action. |
|