_________________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 97838 / July 5, 2023 

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2023-73 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Claim for an Award 

in connection with 

Redacted Redacted

Notice of Covered Action 

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIM 

The Office of the Whistleblower issued a Preliminary Summary Disposition (“PSD”) Redacted

recommending the denial of the whistleblower award claim submitted by 

(“Claimant 2”) in connection with the above-referenced covered action (the “Covered Action”). 

Claimant 2 filed a timely response contesting the preliminary denial. For the reasons discussed 

below, Claimant 2’s award claim is denied.1 

I. Background

A. The Covered Action

On the Commission instituted settled cease-and-desist proceedings 

against (the “Company”) finding that the Company violated 

According to the Commission’s order, the Company 

The Company 

To 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted

1 The Office of the Whistleblower (“OWB”) also preliminarily determined to recommend that the award 

applications of three other claimants be denied. None of these claimants submitted a request for reconsideration and, 

as such, the Preliminary Summary Dispositions with respect to their award claims became the Final Order of the 

Commission, pursuant to Rule 21F-18(b)(4). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

resolve the matter, the Company agreed to pay disgorgement Redacted Redacted and prejudgment 

interest 

On Redactedthe Office of the Whistleblower (“OWB”) posted the Notice for 

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

whistleblower award applications within 90 days. Claimant 2 filed a timely whistleblower award 

claim. 

B. The Preliminary Summary Disposition 

On RedactedOWB issued the PSD in connection with the Covered Action 

recommending that the whistleblower award claim of Claimant 2 be preliminarily denied. OWB 

noted that the information provided by Claimant 2 was never provided to or used by staff 

handling the Covered Action or underlying investigation, and those staff members otherwise had 

no contact with Claimant 2. Therefore, Claimant 2 did not provide 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 because the 

information provided did not: (1) cause the Commission to (i) commence an examination, (ii) 

open or reopen an investigation, or (iii) inquire into different conduct as part of a current 

Commission examination or investigation under Rule 21F-4(c)(1) of the Exchange Act; or (2) 

significantly contribute to the success of a Commission judicial or administrative enforcement 

action under Rule 21F-4(c)(2) of the Exchange Act. OWB also noted that Commission staff 

responsible for the underlying investigation in the Covered Action never received any 

information from Claimant 2 or had any communications with Claimant 2. As such, Claimant 2 

did not provide any information that was used in, or otherwise had any impact on, the 

investigation or resulting Covered Action. 

C. Claimant 2’s Response to the Preliminary Summary Disposition 

Claimant 2 submitted a timely written response (the “Response”) contesting the PSD.

2 In 

the Response, Claimant 2 wrote that: “Its apparent that none of my earlier tips, (since year of Redacted Redacted

 and last one in with valuable information provided to whistleblower 

attorney’s office first and then being directed then to contact help desk of whistleblower office 

with any questions further I have a proof of communication attached bellow.” (errors in original). 

Claimant 2’s Response appears to suggest that he/she submitted additional TCRs and other 

documents that were “clearly overlooked” with respect to his/her award claim made in 

connection with the Covered Action. Similarly, Claimant 2 suggests his/her information was 

overlooked, neglected, or ignored causing his/her tip not to be forwarded to investigative staff in 

a reasonable time. Claimant 2 also wrote that he/she included additional documents in his/her 

Response because they “prove[] that securities violations [] took place in [his/her] case.” 

Finally, Claimant 2’s Response takes issue with the “heavily redacted statements” in the Division 

of Enforcement (“Enforcement”) staff declaration (“Declaration”) and notes that the Declaration Redacted

was seemingly “signed in .” 

2 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-18(b)(3), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-18(b)(3). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. 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.3

 Under Rule 21F-4(c), as relevant here, original information 

will be deemed to “lead to” a successful enforcement action if either: (i) the original information 

caused the staff to open an investigation “or to inquire concerning different conduct as part of a 

current . . . investigation” and the Commission brought a successful action based in whole or in 

part on conduct that was the subject of the original information;4 or (ii) the conduct was already 

under investigation, and the original information “significantly contributed to the success of the 

action.”5 

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.6 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.7

 For the reasons discussed below, 

Claimant 2’s information does not merit a whistleblower award in the Covered Action because 

the record does not establish that the information led to a successful enforcement action, as 

required by Rule 21F-4(c). 

First, the record demonstrates that the Commission’s investigation which led to the 

Covered Action (the “Investigation”) was opened before Claimant 2 submitted his/her 

information to the Commission. RedactedAccording to the Declaration, which we credit, the Investigation 

was opened in early as a result of the staff’s investigative efforts, and not as a result of any 

tip. Accordingly, Claimant 2’s information did not cause the staff to open the Investigation. 

Second, the record shows that Claimant 2’s tip to the Commission did not cause the staff 

to inquire into different conduct or significantly contribute to the success of the Covered Action. 

Claimant 2’s Response takes issue with the indication in the Declaration that Claimant 2’s TCR, 

dated (“ TCR”), did not involve securities violations and was neither received Redacted Redacted

nor reviewed by the Commission staff assigned to the Investigation. Claimant 2’s Response 

suggests that he/she submitted additional TCRs and other documents that were not considered 

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

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

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

6 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 (same). 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

with respect to his/her award claim made in connection with the Covered Action, and that this 

“overlooked” information contributed to the Investigation. 

According to a sworn declaration from OWB staff, which we credit, an additional search Redacted

of the TCR system did not yield any TCRs submitted by the Claimant other than the TCR. 

Claimant 2 also points to other documents he/she included in his/her Response to prove that 

securities violations occurred. But, as reflected by the record, none of Claimant 2’s information, 

including attachments to the TCR, contributed to the success of the Covered Action given that 

Claimant’s information was neither received nor reviewed by the staff assigned to the 

Investigation. 

Claimant 2’s Response also included an email exchange with staff of the SEC’s Office of Redacted

Investor Education and Advocacy (“OIEA”) dated on or around However, 

nothing in this document suggests that any information provided by Claimant 2 was used in or 

had any impact on the charges brought by the Commission in the Covered Action. Further, the 

email exchange does not appear to contain any information about a securities law violation and 

the record does not indicate that it was shared with staff assigned to the Investigation. Instead, 

the email exchange reflects the OIEA staff’s referral of Claimant 2 to another agency. 

Lastly, Claimant 2’s Response takes issue with the “heavily redacted statements” in the 

“signed in RedactedDeclaration and notes that the Declaration was ” Claimant 2’s concerns 

regarding the Declaration are misplaced. Claimant 2 received a copy of the Declaration upon 

request. As reflected by the Confidentiality Agreement that Claimant 2 signed, “... OWB may 

redact any information therein that relates to another claimant’s award application ....” To the 

extent that Claimant 2 is seeking an unredacted copy of the Declaration, Claimant 2 is not 

entitled to it. The redactions in the Declaration were properly made and in accordance with law 

to protect the identity of other claimants.8 With respect to Claimant 2’s argument that the 

Declaration was “signed in ” – it appears that the Declaration was inadvertently dated 

“ .” Upon discovery, the mistake was corrected and Enforcement staff dated the 

Declaration “ .” The revised date did not affect the substance of the Declaration. 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

Accordingly, Claimant 2 received the appropriate information related to his/her claim. 

For these reasons, Claimant 2 is not eligible for a whistleblower award in connection with 

the Covered Action. 

8 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-12(b). 
 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the whistleblower award application of 

Claimant 2 in connection with the Covered Action be, and it hereby is, denied. 

By the Commission. 

J. Lynn Taylor

Assistant Secretary