_________________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 99920 / April 8, 2024 

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2024-14

_________________________________________________________________________ 

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 Office of the Whistleblower (“OWB”) issued a Preliminary Summary Disposition

Redacted

1 

recommending the 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.2 

I. Background

A. The Covered Action

On , the Commission filed a complaint alleging that 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

1 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-18, 17 C.F.R. § 240.2F-18. 

2 OWB also preliminarily denied the award claims of two other claimants. These claimants did not seek 

reconsideration of the Preliminary Summary Dispositions, and therefore, the denials of their claims were deemed to 

be the Final Orders of the Commission under Exchange Act Rule 21F-18(b)(4). 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Redacted Redacted

The complaint alleged that 

Redacted

. The 

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

complaint further alleged that 

 The Commission alleged that 

On 

On 

Redacted

, the Court entered a final judgment against

Redacted

 ordering 

monetary sanctions of more than $1 million. 

On , OWB posted the Notice for the Covered Action on the 

Redacted

Commission’s public website inviting claimants to submit whistleblower award applications 

within 90 days. Claimant filed a timely whistleblower claim. 

B. The Preliminary Summary Disposition 

OWB issued a Preliminary Summary Disposition recommending that Claimant’s claim 

be denied because Claimant’s information did not lead to the success of the Covered Action 

within the meaning of Section 21F(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rules 21F-3(a)(3) and 21F4(c) thereunder. Enforcement staff opened the Covered Action investigation based on a source 

other than Claimant. Enforcement staff assigned to the investigation that led to the Covered 

Action never received or reviewed any information from Claimant or had any communications 

with Claimant. 

C. Claimant’s Response to the Preliminary Summary Disposition 

Claimant submitted a timely written response contesting the Preliminary Summary 

Disposition.

3 Specifically, Claimant argues that he/she is entitled to an award because he/she 

submitted his/her tip months prior to the opening of the investigation. Therefore, Claimant states 

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

2 
 

 

 

that he/she “cannot understand how the Staff or the Commission did not use my allegations 

about the fraudulent scheme to open the investigation or even begin to suspect the wrong-doings 

of [the company].” 

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.4 Additionally, and as relevant here, information will be 

deemed to have led to a successful enforcement action if it “caused 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,” and the Commission 

thereafter brought a successful action based in whole or in part on conduct that was the subject of 

the claimant’s original information,5 or was “about conduct that was already under examination 

or investigation by the Commission” and the “submission significantly contributed to the success 

of the action.”6 In determining whether 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.7 

The record supports the conclusion that Claimant’s information did not cause the staff to 

open the investigation. Enforcement staff responsible for the Covered Action affirmed in a 

declaration, which we credit, that the investigation was opened based upon another source. While 

Claimant’s information was submitted to the Commission prior to the opening of the 

investigation, Claimant’s information did not cause Enforcement staff to open the Covered 

Action investigation. 

The record also supports the conclusion that Claimant’s information did not cause the 

Commission to inquire into different conduct as part of the investigation and did not significantly 

contribute to the success of the Covered Action. While Claimant surmises that his/her 

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

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

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

7 See Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claims, Release No. 34-85412, March 26, 2019; Order Determining 

Whistleblower Award Claims, Release No. 34-82897, March 19, 2018; see also Securities Whistleblower Incentives 

& Protections, 76 Fed. Reg. 34300, 34325 (June 13, 2011) (in determining whether information significantly 

contributed to an enforcement action, the Commission will consider whether the information allowed the agency to 

bring the action in significantly less time or with significantly fewer resources, additional successful claims, or 

successful claims against additional individuals or entities). 

3 
 

 

information must have caused Enforcement staff or the Commission to suspect wrongdoing, the 

record does not demonstrate how his/her information made any contribution to the Covered 

Action investigation, let alone a significant or meaningful contribution. Staff assigned to the 

investigation did not have any communications with Claimant, nor did they review or receive 

any information from Claimant. Accordingly, Claimant’s information was not used in the 

Covered Action investigation, did not cause the staff to inquire into different conduct, and did 

not significantly contribute to the success of the Covered Action. 

For these reasons, we deny Claimant’s whistleblower award claim. 

III. Conclusion

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

the Covered Action be, and hereby is, denied. 

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary 

4