_________________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 97612 / May 30, 2023 

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2023-65

_________________________________________________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Claim for an Award 

in connection with 

Redacted Redacted

Notice of Covered Action 

Redacted

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIM 

The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued a Preliminary Determination recommending the 

Redacted

denial of the whistleblower award claim submitted by (“Claimant”) in connection 

with the above-referenced covered action (the “Covered Action”). Claimant filed a timely 

response contesting the preliminary denial. For the reasons discussed below, Claimant’s award 

claim is denied. 

I. Background

A. The Covered Action

On , the SEC filed a litigated civil injunctive action in Federal District 

Court against (“the Firm”) and 

 the firm’s , alleging that the Firm violated 

, and that violated 

. The SEC alleged that the Firm 

, which were 

based on information 

(the “Company”), 

. On , the court 

issued a final judgment including 

. 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

1
On , the Office of the Whistleblower (“OWB”) posted a Notice of Covered 

Redacted

Action on the Commission’s public website inviting claimants to submit whistleblower award 

applications within 90 days. Claimant filed a timely whistleblower award claim. 

B. The Preliminary Determination

The CRS issued a Preliminary Determination recommending that Claimant’s award claim

be denied because Claimant did not provide information that led to the successful enforcement of 

the Covered Action within the meaning of Section 21F(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 21F-3(a)(3) and 21F-4(c) thereunder. The CRS preliminarily 

determined that Claimant’s information did not either (1) cause the Commission to (a) 

commence an examination, open or reopen an investigation, or inquire into different conduct as 

part of a current Commission examination or investigation, and (b) thereafter bring an action 

based, in whole or in part, on conduct that was the subject of Claimant’s information, under 

Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(1); or (2) significantly contribute to the success of a Commission 

judicial or administrative enforcement action, under Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(2). The CRS 

preliminarily determined that investigative staff responsible for the Covered Action received 

information from Claimant and had communications with Claimant, but the information and 

Redacted Redacted

communications primarily concerned another covered action involving 

(“Other Entity”), for which Claimant already received an award. Claimant’s 

information did not contribute in any way to this Covered Action. In addition, the CRS 

preliminarily determined that Claimant did not provide original information as the limited 

information Claimant provided concerning the Firm was already known to the SEC staff. 

C. Claimant’s Response to the Preliminary Determination

Claimant submitted a timely written response (the “Response”) contesting the

Preliminary Determination.1 In the Response, Claimant argues that the SEC did not consult with 

or obtain input from Claimant’s central contact at the SEC in issuing the Preliminary 

Determination and that the recollection of the Enforcement staff member who provided a 

declaration was limited. 

Claimant also argues in the Response that Claimant provided original information that 

caused staff to inquire concerning different conduct, or alternatively, significantly contributed to 

the success of the Covered Action. First, Claimant argues that no subpoena was issued to the 

Firm until after Claimant reached out to the SEC and submitted information and assisted staff. 

Second, Claimant argues that he/she provided his/her own conversations with 

and detailed the red flags that the Firm was

Redacted

 aware of misconduct, including by 

, which caused the SEC to focus on the Firm as a 

Redacted Redacted

participant in the fraud. Third, Claimant argues that he/she was the key element that led to an 

investigation involving the Company being extended to the Firm, just as Claimant’s information 

extended that investigation to the Other Entity that was the defendant in the other covered action 

for which Claimant already received a whistleblower award. Claimant argues that the SEC only 

1 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(e), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(e). 

2
became aware of the substance of what inculpated the Firm as a direct result of Claimant 

stepping forward as a whistleblower. 

D. Analysis

To qualify for an award under Section 21F of the Exchange Act, a whistleblower must

voluntarily provide the Commission with original information that leads to the successful 

enforcement of a covered action.2 As relevant here, under Exchange Act Rules 21F-4(c)(1) and 

(2), respectively, the Commission will consider a claimant to have provided original information 

that led to the successful enforcement of a covered action if either (1) the original information 

caused the staff to commence an examination, open an investigation, or inquire into different 

conduct as part of a current examination or investigation and the Commission brought a 

successful action based in whole or in part on conduct that was the subject of the original 

information;3 or (2) the conduct was already under examination or investigation, and the original 

information “significantly contributed to the success of the action.”4

In determining whether the information “significantly contributed” to the success of the 

action, the Commission will consider whether the information was “meaningful” in that it “made 

a substantial and important contribution” to the success of the covered action.5 For example, the 

Commission will consider a claimant’s information to have significantly contributed to the 

success of an enforcement action if it allowed the Commission to bring the action in significantly 

less time or with significantly fewer resources, or to bring additional successful claims or 

successful claims against additional individuals or entities.6

Based on the record, which includes detailed declarations, which we credit, from the 

primary Enforcement attorneys responsible for the Covered Action investigation, including the 

one identified by Claimant in his/her Response, Claimant did not provide information that led to 

the success of the Covered Action. First, Claimant’s information did not cause Enforcement 

staff to identify or focus on the Firm. Rather, in connection with the investigation into the 

Redacted

Company, staff sent a subpoena to the Firm in , which was months before Claimant 

provided any information to the Commission. It was the information and documents provided by 

the Firm in response to the subpoena that caused staff to open the Covered Action investigation. 

As such, Claimant’s information did not cause the staff to open the Covered Action investigation 

or inquire into the Firm’s role in the misconduct. 

Second, Claimant’s tips and information did not significantly contribute to the success of 

. Further, while Claimant provided limited information about the 

the Covered Action. Claimant’s information primarily concerned the Other Entity, at which 

Redacted

2 Exchange Act Section 21F(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1). 

3 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(c)(1). 

4 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(c)(2). 

5 Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims, Exchange Act Rel. No. 90922 (Jan. 14, 2021) at 4; see also 

Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims, Exchange Act Rel. No. 85412 (Mar. 26, 2019) at 9. 

6 Exchange Act Rel. No. 85412 at 8-9. 

3
Firm alleging that Firm personnel were aware of red flags with 

, the staff already had received documents and information directly from the Firm that 

Redacted Redacted

established this point. As such, Claimant provided no new information that was used in, or 

otherwise had any impact on, the Covered Action. 

We therefore conclude that Claimant did not provide original information that led to the 

successful enforcement of the above-referenced Covered Action within the meaning of Section 

21F(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rules 21F-3(a)(3) and 21F-4(c) thereunder. 

II. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Claimant’s whistleblower award application 

be, and hereby is, denied. 

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary 

4