_________________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 97805 / June 27, 2023 

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2023-70

_________________________________________________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Claims for an Award 

in connection with 

Redacted

Notice of Covered Action Redacted

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIMS 

(collectively, “Claimant 2”) receive a whistleblower award 

of over $1 million, equal to percent ( %) of the monetary sanctions collected in the 

Covered Action.1 Claimant 1 filed a timely response contesting the Preliminary Determination’s 

recommended award allocation. Claimant 2 did not contest the Preliminary Determination. For 

the reasons discussed below, the CRS’s recommendations are adopted with respect to Claimants 

1 and 2. 

of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action, and that joint claimants Redacted Redacted

The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued Preliminary Determinations in connection with Redacted

percent ( ***%) ***

 “Covered Action”) recommending that Redacted ***the above-referenced Covered Action (the

(“Claimant 1”) receive a whistleblower award of over $1 million, equal to 

I. Background

A. The Covered Action

On the Commission instituted settled administrative and cease-anddesist proceedings against (the “Company”). The 

Commission’s Order charged the Company with 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

1

 The CRS also preliminarily determined to recommend a denial of the award claim of another 

claimant, Claimant 3. Claimant 3 did not contest the Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, 

the preliminary denial as to Claimant 3 became the Final Order of the Commission pursuant to 

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

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The Commission 

ordered the Company to pay 

On the Office of the Whistleblower posted the Notice for the Covered 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

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

applications within 90 days.2 Claimants 1 and 2 each filed a timely whistleblower award claim. 

B. The Preliminary Determinations 

The CRS issued Preliminary Determinations Redacted

3

 recommending that Claimant 1 receive a 

Redacted

percent ( ***

percent ( ***

whistleblower award in the amount of %) of the monetary sanctions collected 

and that Claimant 2 receive a whistleblower award in the amount of %) of the 

monetary sanctions collected. In determining the award allocation between Claimants 1 and 2, 

the CRS considered that both Claimants 1 and 2 provided information that caused, in part, staff 

to open the Covered Action investigation, and both Claimants 1 and 2 provided substantial, 

helpful assistance. 

C. Claimant 1’s Response to the Preliminary Determination 

Claimant 1 submitted a timely written response contesting the Preliminary 

Determination.4

 In his/her reconsideration request, Claimant 1 argues that his/her award 

percentage should be higher than Claimant 2’s award percentage given three factors: (i) the 

timing of Claimant 1’s and Claimant 2’s submissions, (ii) the relative importance of Claimant 1’s 

and Claimant 2’s contributions to the success of the Covered Action, and (iii) the source of 

Claimant 2’s information as it relates to the importance of Claimant 2’s contributions to the 

success of the Covered Action and suggests that Claimant 2 may have benefited from the 

scheme. Claimant 1 argues that his/her information had a more important part than Claimant 2’s 

information in causing the staff to open the Covered Action investigation because his/her 

information both opened an investigation into another entity (“Other investigation”)5 and caused 

staff to plan to open an investigation into the Company. Claimant 1 also argues that his/her 

contributions to the success of the Covered Action vastly outweigh any relative contributions by 

Claimant 2. 

II. Analysis 

The record demonstrates that Claimants 1 and 2 voluntarily provided original information 

to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action.6

 Accordingly, 

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

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

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

5 The Other investigation resulted in a separate enforcement action (“Other action”), which 

is pending. There is also parallel criminal litigation (“Criminal actions”). 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

Claimants 1 and 2 are eligible for a whistleblower award. 

Rule 21F-5(b) provides that if all of the conditions are met for a whistleblower award, the 

Commission will decide the percentage amount of the award, which must be between 10% and 

30% of the monetary sanctions collected.7 

12 

Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted Redacted

3(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-3(a). 

17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-5(b); see also Exchange Act Rule 21F-5(a) (“[t]he determination of 

the amount of an award is in the discretion of the Commission”) and Exchange Act Rule 21F5(c) (“[i]f the Commission makes awards to more than one whistleblower . . . the Commission 

will determine an individual percentage award for each whistleblower”). 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Redacted

Redacted Redacted Redacted

Redacted

It is premature to determine whether the Other action will result in its own Notice of 

Covered Action or whether it arises from the “same nucleus of operative facts” as the Covered 

Action for purposes of payment of a whistleblower award. See Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(d), 17 

C.F.R. § 240.2F-4(d). Similarly, it is premature to determine whether the Criminal actions are 

“related actions.” See Exchange Act Rules 21F-3(b) and 21F-11, 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.21F-3(b), 

12 
 

 

 

Redacted

We find the award allocation is appropriate. Claimant 1’s arguments in his/her 

reconsideration request for a higher award percentage are largely based on speculation and do 

not support a higher award percentage allocation to Claimant 1. 

First, as to the timing of the submissions, Claimant 1 provided information before 

Claimant 2, but staff opened the Other investigation based on Claimant 1’s tip. While staff 

planned to look into the culpability of the Company, staff did not open the Covered Action 

investigation until after it received Clamant 2’s detailed information. The record is clear that 

staff opened the Covered Action investigation based both on information developed from the 

Other investigation and Claimant 2’s tip, and that both Claimants 1 and 2 provided information 

that caused, in part, staff to open the Covered Action investigation. 

Second, as to the significance of their information, Claimant 1 speculates that either 

Claimant 2 provided information before Claimant 1 that was not sufficient on its own to open the 

Covered Action investigation or that Claimant 2 provided information after Claimant 1 and 

stresses that Claimant 1’s information was sufficient by itself to cause the staff to plan to 

investigate the Company. Claimant 1 also argues that Claimant 2 would have to provide 

information not already known to the Commission that added to the Commission’s base of 

knowledge. As noted, Claimant 1 provided information before Claimant 2, but both Claimant 

1’s and Claimant 2’s information caused staff to open the Covered Action investigation. In 

addition, the record is clear that Claimant 2 provided significant original information, including 

both independent knowledge and independent analysis, that differed from Claimant 1’s 

information and that was helpful to the success of the Covered Action. 

Third, as to the source of their information, Claimant 1 makes incorrect assumptions 

about how Claimant 2 obtained information, speculating that Claimant 2 could have financially 

benefited from the misconduct at issue in the Covered Action, and argues that Claimant 1’s 

information is therefore either more significant or provided the direct causal link to the Covered 

Action investigation. Claimant 1’s assumptions are incorrect. 

Based on the foregoing, we agree with the CRS’s determination that an equal award 

allocation is appropriate. Both Claimant 1 and Claimant 2 provided original information that 

contributed to the opening of the Covered Action investigation, and both Claimant 1 and 

Claimant 2 provided substantial, helpful assistance. 

IV. Conclusion 

240.2F-11. Redacted
 

 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Claimant 1 shall receive an award of Redactedpercent 

( 

***

%) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action and that Claimant 2 shall Redacted

percent ( ***receive an award of %) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered 

Action. 

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary