_________________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 97397 / APRIL 28, 2023 

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2023-53

_________________________________________________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Claim for an Award 

in connection with 

Redacted Redacted

Notice of Covered Action 

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 1”) in connection 

with the above-referenced covered action (the “Covered Action”). Claimant 1 filed a timely 

response contesting the preliminary denial. For the reasons discussed below, Claimant 1’s award 

claim is denied.1 

I. Background

A. The Covered Action

On , the Commission instituted settled cease-and-desist proceedings 

against 

According to the Commission’s order, 

. To resolve the matter, the Company agreed to pay disgorgement of 

prejudgment interest of and a civil penalty. 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

1 The CRS also preliminarily determined to recommend that the award applications of two other claimants be 

denied. None of these claimants submitted a request for reconsideration and, as such, the Preliminary 

Determinations with respect to their award claims became the Final Order of the Commission, pursuant to Rule 21F10(f). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Redacted

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

whistleblower award applications within 90 days. Claimant 1 filed a timely whistleblower award 

claim. 

B. The Preliminary Determination 

On 

Redacted

, the CRS issued a Preliminary Determination recommending that 

Claimant 1’s claim be denied because Claimant 1 did not provide information that led to the 

successful enforcement of the 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. The CRS reasoned that Claimant 

1’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, pursuant to Rule 21F-4(c)(1); 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. The CRS noted that Claimant 1 provided 

information approximately four years after the investigation had been opened and the 

information was already known to the staff; as such, the information did not contribute to the 

investigation. 

C. Claimant 1’s Response to the Preliminary Determination 

Claimant 1 submitted a timely written response (the “Response”) contesting the 

Preliminary Determination.2 In the Response, Claimant 1 wrote that: (1) “not all of [the] 

information provided to [the Commission] was known to [Enforcement staff] at the time, [and] 

relevant parts of it seem to have been ignored or dismissed; and (2) not all the senior officials at 

[the Company] were punished; [and] (3) not all the 

beneficiaries were identified and dismissed from [the 

Company.]” Claimant 1 contends that he/she provided information, including

 involved , and believes that this information could not have 

Redacted Redacted Redacted *** Redacted

come from the Company. Claimant 1 also urges the Commission to reopen the investigation to 

pursue . Redacted

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), 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 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

examination or 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 1’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 approximately four years before Claimant 1 

submitted his/her information to the Commission. Accordingly, Claimant 1’s information did 

not cause the staff to open the Investigation. 

Second, the record shows that Claimant 1’s tip to the Commission did not cause the staff 

to inquire into different conduct or significantly contribute to the Investigation. According to the 

sworn declaration from Enforcement staff assigned to the Investigation, which we credit, by the 

time Claimant 1’s TCR was submitted to the Commission in , the Company had 

already identified all Claimant 1’s TCR submission and provided 

substantial documentary evidence concerning to Enforcement staff responsible for the 

Investigation. Further, because the TCR did not provide any new information, Enforcement staff 

responsible for the Investigation did not contact Claimant 1, or seek additional information from 

him/her. Enforcement staff noted that none of Claimant 1’s information helped advance the 

Investigation nor did it have any impact on the charges brought by the Commission. 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

Lastly, Claimant 1’s Response takes issue with the result of the Investigation and asks 

Redacted

that the Commission “reopen the investigation” to pursue

 based on the information he/she provided. Claimant 1’s Response appears to contain 

new and updated information that was not part of Claimant 1’s original TCR. But new 

information provided during the reconsideration phase of an award determination may not be the 

basis for an award. Moreover, the issue whether the Commission should reopen the investigation 

is outside the scope of this adjudication. In considering Claimant 1’s Response, the sole question 

before the Commission is whether Claimant 1 is eligible for a whistleblower award based on the 

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

5 See Exchange Act Rule 21-F-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. 
 

 

information Claimant 1 provided to the Commission. As discussed above, Claimant 1’s 

information did not lead to the success of an enforcement action, as required by Rule 21F-4(c). 

For these reasons, Claimant 1 does not qualify for a whistleblower award. 

III. Conclusion 

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

Claimant 1 in connection with the Covered Action be, and it hereby is, denied. 

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary