______________________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 99914 / April 8, 2024

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2024-12

______________________________________________________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Claims for Award 

in connection with 

Notice of Covered Action 

Notice of Covered Action 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIMS 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued a Preliminary Determination in connection with 

(“Covered Action 1”) and

 (“Covered Action 2”) (collectively, “Covered Actions”) 

recommending that (“Claimant 1”) and (“Claimant 2”) be 

denied whistleblower awards for the Covered Actions. Claimant 1 and Claimant 2 filed timely 

responses contesting the Preliminary Determination. For the reasons discussed below, Claimant 

1’s and Claimant 2’s award claims are denied.1

I. Background

A. The

Redacted

Regional Office Investigation 

In 

Redacted

 Claimant 1 provided information to the Commission’s Division of 

Redacted

Enforcement (“Enforcement”) staff in the Regional Office (“Regional Office 1 Staff”) 

See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(e), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(e). 1 
during a voluntary interview. As a result of Claimant 1’s information, on 

Office 1 Staff opened a matter under inquiry (“MUI”). On 

1 Staff requested to convert the MUI to a formal investigation. On 

Regional 

Regional Office 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

1’s tip, Regional Office 1 Staff conducted additional voluntary interviews with Claimant 1 and 

connection with the MUI. On 

Redacted Redacted

Claimant 1 submitted a tip to the Commission. After Regional Office 1 Staff received Claimant 

his/her counsel. On Regional Office 1 Staff interviewed Claimant 1 in 

 the MUI was formally converted to an 

investigation (“Regional Office 1 Investigation”). Regional Office 1 Staff reviewed documents 

produced by Claimant 1 during the course of the Regional Office 1 Investigation. 

The Regional Office 1 Investigation related to possible 

(“Company”) and

 in connection with 

The Regional Office 1 Investigation 

focused on whether 

During the Regional Office 1 Investigation, and to fully investigate the 

allegations in Claimant 1’s tip, Regional Office 1 Staff obtained information directly from

 numerous other current and former and 

Although Regional Office 1 Staff investigated every claim in Claimant 1’s tip, 

the Regional Office 1 Investigation was ultimately closed on due to 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted ***

insufficient evidence to support an enforcement action. The Regional Office 1 Investigation did 

not lead to either of the Covered Actions. 

B. The

Redacted

Regional Office Investigation and Covered Action 1 

In or around 

Redacted

Enforcement staff in the 

Redacted

Regional Office 

(“Regional Office 2 Staff”) opened an investigation (“Regional Office 2 Investigation”) 

following an internal sweep conducted by Commission staff. The Regional Office 2 

Investigation was opened because Regional Office 2 Staff learned that the Company had 

As a result of the Regional Office 2 Investigation, on 

 the Commission brought Covered Action 1, instituting cease-and-desist proceedings 

against the Company for violations. The Commission found that the 

Company

 The Commission determined that the Company violated 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted ***

2 
Redacted Redacted

 To resolve Covered Action 1, the Company agreed to, 

among other things, pay a civil money penalty as well as disgorgement and prejudgment interest 

Redacted

totaling 

C. The

Redacted

Regional Office Investigation and Covered Action 2 

On or about 

Redacted

 Enforcement staff in the

Redacted

 Regional Office 

(“Regional Office 3 Staff”) opened an investigation (“Regional Office 3 Investigation”) as a 

result of responses to voluntary document requests Regional Office 3 Staff sent to the Company 

and other

 The voluntary document requests were sent out as part of an internally 

generated initiative that started in approximately As a result of the Regional Office 3 

Investigation, on the Commission brought Covered Action 2, 

 Covered Action 2 found that the 

Company willfully violated 

To resolve Covered Action 2, the Company agreed to, among other 

things, pay a civil money penalty of 

 The Commission found that the Company failed to disclose that 

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

D. Notices of Covered Action for Covered Action 1 and Covered Action 2

On and 

Redacted Redacted

the Office of the Whistleblower (“OWB”) 

posted the Notices of Covered Action for Covered Action 1 and Covered Action 2 on the 

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

within 90 days.2 Claimant 1 and Claimant 2 filed timely whistleblower award claims for both 

Covered Actions. 

E. The Preliminary Determination as to Claimant 1

On the CRS issued a Preliminary Determination3 recommending that 

Redacted

Claimant 1’s claims be denied.

4 The Preliminary Determination recommended a denial because 

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 The record supporting the Preliminary Determination included the declarations of Regional Office 1 Staff 

(“Regional Office 1 Declaration”), Regional Office 2 Staff (“Regional Office 2 Declaration”), and Regional Office 3 

Staff (“Regional Office 3 Declaration”) (collectively, “Declarations”). See Exchange Act Rule 21F-12(a), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.21F-12(a).

3 
Claimant 1 did not provide information that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered 

Actions within the meaning of Section 21F(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rules 21F-3(a)(3) and 

21F-4(c) thereunder. Claimant 1 did not provide information that caused the opening of the 

investigations resulting in the Covered Actions. Claimant 1’s information did not significantly 

contribute to the success of the Covered Actions because the majority of the information was 

unrelated to the subject matter of the Covered Actions; for the few aspects that were related, the 

information was duplicative of information of which Commission staff was already aware. 

F. Claimant 1’s Response to the Preliminary Determination 

Redacted

to Regional Office 1 Staff (“

Redacted Redacted Redacted

Claimant 1 states that on Claimant 1 submitted information via email 

 Email”) regarding the Company and its 

Claimant 1 advised Regional Office 1 Staff that he/she 

would also be speaking with (“Reporter”). 

Redacted

Claimant 1 states that he/she subsequently communicated with the Reporter and provided 

Redacted

1 states that from

Redacted Redacted Redacted

information about, among other things, the Company’s Claimant 

 the Reporter investigated the Company and made 

direct inquiries to the Company about its Claimant 1 asserts that 

sometime prior to the end of the Reporter’s inquiries caused the Company to 

initiate an internal investigation. Claimant 1 alleges that the Regional Office 3 Investigation was 

subsequently opened based, in part, on information the Company provided to the Commission 

following its internal investigation. 

 Article was followed by additional articles in (“ 

Articles”). In Claimant 1 and his/her counsel spoke with Regional 

Claimant 1 also states that on 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

which concerned a Commission investigation into the Company (“ 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted ***

Claimant 1 sent an email to Regional 

Office 1 Staff regarding the Company’s 

(“ 

Redacted

Email”). On an article written by the Reporter was published, 

Redacted ***

Article”). The 

Office 1 Staff and Regional Office 3 Staff following Commission staff’s request for a call. 

Redacted Redacted

Claimant 1 alleges that in all, from he/she provided additional 

information to the Commission regarding the Company’s 

Redacted

In light of these alleged facts, Claimant 1 makes four primary arguments about why 

he/she should receive an award for Covered Action 2. First, Claimant 1 argues that he/she was 

Redacted Redacted

the first source to provide the Commission with information about the Company’s

Redacted

 which was later charged in Covered Action 2. Claimant 1 alleges that the 

Redacted ***

Commission first learned of the Company’s as a result of the 

Email he/she sent to Regional Office 1 Staff, which was eight months prior to the opening 

4 
of the Regional Office 3 Investigation. Claimant 1 states that the Email contained 

specific and detailed information about the Company’s

 that ultimately served as the core basis of Covered 

Action 2. 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

Second, Claimant 1 argues that he/she was the “original source” for the Reporter 

regarding the Company’s and the Article and the 

Articles. Claimant 1 states that Commission staff have acknowledged that staff 

read the Article and the Articles. Claimant 1 asserts that Rule 

21F-4(b)(5) gives whistleblowers credit where Commission staff receive information that 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

whistleblowers made available through third parties such as the Reporter. 

Third, Claimant 1 alleges that the information that he/she submitted to the Reporter 

subsequently generated information that triggered and significantly contributed to the Regional 

Redacted

Office 3 Investigation and Covered Action 2. 

Redacted Redacted

Claimant 1 states that after he/she submitted ***

information to the Reporter, the Reporter submitted inquiries to the Company regarding 

Claimant 1 alleges that such inquiries caused the Company to launch its 

internal investigation regarding issue a document 

preservation notice, and then According to Claimant 1, 

the Company’s internal investigation led to the Company’s voluntary disclosures to and 

cooperation with Regional Office 3 Staff. 

Fourth, Claimant 1 argues that he/she provided the Commission with substantial ongoing 

Redacted Redacted

assistance regarding the Company’s Claimant 1 states that 

he/she provided additional information about the Company’s

Redacted Redacted Redacted

 in 

the Email, which was sent to Regional Office 1 Staff. Claimant 1 alleges that 

similar to the Email, the Email was highly relevant to the Regional 

Office 3 Investigation and mirrored the key findings in Covered Action 2. 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

Claimant 1 states that 

along with providing the Email and the Email, he/she also continued 

to provide information to the Commission through that was relevant to Covered 

Action 2. 

Additionally, Claimant 1 argues that he/she should receive an award for Covered Action 

Redacted Redacted

1. Claimant 1 alleges that the information he/she provided about the Company’s

 contributed to Covered Action 1. Claimant 1 contends that the 

Covered Actions should be treated together when considering Claimant 1’s award claims 

because both Covered Actions arose from the same nucleus of operative facts. 

5 
G. The Preliminary Determination as to Claimant 2 

the CRS issued a Preliminary Determination5 On recommending that 

Redacted

Claimant 2’s claims be denied.

6 The Preliminary Determination recommended a denial because 

Claimant 2 did not provide information that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered 

Actions within the meaning of Section 21F(b)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rules 21F-3(a)(3) and 

21F-4(c). Claimant 2 did not provide information that caused the opening of the investigations, 

and Claimant 2 did not provide information that significantly contributed to the Covered Actions. 

H. Claimant 2’s Response to the Preliminary Determination 

In response, Claimant 2 makes several arguments. First, Claimant 2 alleges that 

he/she shared extensive information with the Commission 

during 

and during a meeting with Regional Office 1 Staff 

in Claimant 2 states that the information he/she shared during 

 was comprehensive and included information about the relationship between the 

Company and 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted ***

Second, Claimant 2 alleges that Regional Office 1 Staff informed Claimant 2 in 

 that the information he/she shared had value and was fulsome. Claimant 2 alleges that 

***

Regional Office 1 Staff perceived his/her information as helpful because some of it was new, and 

other information corroborated information that the Commission already possessed. 

Third, Claimant 2 alleges that during his/her meeting with Regional Office 1 

Staff, staff specifically asked Claimant 2 not to share with the Company 

Redacted Redacted

that Claimant 2 had spoken to the Commission. Claimant 2 alleges that this instruction affected 

Claimant 2 states 

that 

Claimant 2 

alleges that 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

5 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(d), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(d). 6 The record supporting the Preliminary Determination included the Declarations. See Exchange Act Rule 

21F-12(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-12(a). 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

6 
Fourth, Claimant 2 alleges that 

As such, Claimant 2 believes that the existence of 

Redacted Redacted Redacted

witnesses who were willing to testify against the Company such as Claimant 2 provided the 

Commission with leverage and likely hastened the settlements of the Covered Actions. 

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.8 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;9 or (ii) the conduct was already under examination or 

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

action.”10 

A. Claimant 1 

We deny an award to Claimant 1. The record demonstrates that Claimant 1 did not 

provide information that led to the enforcement of the Covered Actions. According to the 

Commission’s Tips, Complaints, and Referrals System (“TCR System”), Claimant 1’s tip was 

reviewed and considered by Regional Office 1 Staff who was investigating other conduct by the 

Company unrelated to the subject matter of the Regional Office 2 Investigation and the Regional 

Office 3 Investigation that resulted in the Covered Actions. 

We credit the Declarations, provided under penalty of perjury, in support of our 

conclusion to deny Claimant 1’s award claims. According to the Regional Office 1 Declaration, 

although Claimant 1’s information caused Regional Office 1 Staff to initiate the Regional Office 

1 Investigation, the investigation was closed due to insufficient evidence to support an 

enforcement action. Regional Office 1 Staff did not work on the Regional Office 2 Investigation 

or the Regional Office 3 Investigation. 

According to the Regional Office 2 Declaration, the Regional Office 2 Investigation was 

not opened based on Claimant 1’s tip or any other information provided by Claimant 1. 

Redacted

Instead, 

in or around Regional Office 2 Staff opened the Regional Office 2 Investigation 

8 Exchange Act Section 21F(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1). 9 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(c)(1). 10 See Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(c)(2). 

7 
following an internal sweep conducted by Commission staff. Claimant 1’s tip did not relate to 

the subject matter of the Regional Office 2 Investigation, and it was not the impetus of the 

Regional Office 2 Investigation. Regional Office 2 Staff does not recall receiving any 

information provided by Claimant 1 before or during the Regional Office 2 Investigation. None 

of Claimant 1’s information was used in or had any impact on the findings by the Commission in 

Covered Action 1. 

According to the Regional Office 3 Declaration, Claimant 1’s tip was not the impetus of 

the Regional Office 3 Investigation. None of Claimant 1’s information helped advance the 

Regional Office 3 Investigation, and Claimant 1’s information did not contribute to the findings 

by the Commission in Covered Action 2. Instead, on or about Regional 

Office 3 Staff opened the Regional Office 3 Investigation as a result of responses to voluntary 

document requests Regional Office 3 Staff sent to the Company and other 

The 

voluntary document requests were sent out as part of an internally generated initiative that started 

in approximately 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

Thus, based on the factual record, there is no basis to grant Claimant 1 an award for the 

Covered Actions. None of Claimant 1’s arguments change this conclusion. 

First, Claimant 1’s reliance on the 

Redacted

Email—which was only addressed and 

sent to Regional Office 1 Staff—as evidence that his/her information initiated and subsequently 

advanced the Regional Office 3 Investigation and Covered Action 2 is erroneous. According to 

the supplemental declaration of the same Regional Office 3 Staff attorney who provided the 

Regional Office 3 Declaration (“Regional Office 3 Supplemental Declaration”), provided under 

penalty of perjury, and which we also credit, the Email and the information 

RedactedRedacted

contained therein did not play any role in the opening of the Regional Office 3 Investigation or 

otherwise impact the investigation. Additionally, the Email and the information 

contained therein was not used in, nor had any impact on, the charges brought by the 

Commission in Covered Action 2. 

Second, Claimant 1’s contention that he/she was the

Redacted Redacted

 “original source” for the Reporter 

Redacted ***

regarding the Company’s and the subsequently published 

Article and Articles does not entitle him/her to an award for Covered 

Action 2. Rule 21F-4(b)(5) provides that for purposes of satisfying the “original information” 

requirement, the Commission considers a claimant to be “an original source of the same 

information” that the Commission obtains from another source “if the information satisfies the 

definition of original information and the other source obtained the information from” the 

8 
11 

claimant or his/her representative.

Redacted

11 Here, according to the Regional Office 3 Declaration, the 

Redacted

information contained within the Article and the Articles was 

already known by Regional Office 3 Staff before the articles were published. 

Redacted

The Regional 

Redacted

Office 3 Supplemental Declaration further confirms that the Article and the 

 Articles did not contain any new information that advanced or impacted the 

Regional Office 3 Investigation or Covered Action 2. 

Redacted Redacted

Accordingly, because the information in 

the Article and the Articles was not new, it was not “original 

information” pursuant to Rule 21F-4(b). 

Redacted

Claimant 1’s contention that he/she was the original 

Redacted

source of the Article and the Articles is immaterial because the 

information in those articles does not satisfy either the “original information” or the “led to” 

requirements under the whistleblower program rules. 

Third, Claimant 1’s arguments regarding how the information he/she provided to the 

Reporter and the Reporter’s subsequent work precipitated a number of events involving the 

Company—including the initiation of the Company’s internal investigation and its ensuing 

voluntary disclosures to and cooperation with Regional Office 3 Staff —are misplaced.12 Such 

arguments are inapposite to the determination of whether the information that Claimant 1 

directly submitted to the Commission either: (1) caused Regional Office 3 Staff to open the 

Regional Office 3 Investigation or inquire concerning different conduct; or (2) significantly 

contributed to the success of Covered Action 2, as required in relevant part by Rules 21F-4(c)(1) 

and (2). The record, including the Regional Office 3 Declaration and the Regional Office 3 

Supplemental Declaration, confirms that Claimant 1 did not provide the Commission with any 

such information. Claimant 1 thus does not satisfy Rules 21F-4(c)(1) or (2), contrary to 

Claimant 1’s assertions otherwise.13 

See Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(b)(5), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(b)(5) (“The Commission will consider you to 

be an original source of the same information that we obtain from another source if the information satisfies the 

definition of original information and the other source obtained the information from you or your representative.”). 

12 Claimant 1 observes that within Covered Action 2, the Commission recognized that the Company 

Covered Action 2 at 

Redacted Redacted Redacted ***

13 Claimant 1 has not raised an argument that he/she should receive an award under Rule 21F-4(c)(3). 

Nonetheless, Claimant 1 does not satisfy Rule 21F-4(c)(3). That Rule provides, in relevant part, that if “[y]ou [i.e., a 

whistleblower claimant] reported original information through an entity’s internal whistleblower, legal, or 

compliance procedures for reporting allegations of possible violations of law before or at the same time you reported 

them to the Commission,” and the entity later provided to the Commission such information or the results of an 

“investigation initiated in whole or in part in response to information you reported to the entity,” and “the 

information the entity provided to the Commission satisfies either” Rule 21F-4(c)(1) or (2), then the claimant would 

§ 240.21F-4(c)(3). Here, the Reporter’s direct inquiries to the Company regarding 

be deemed to have provided “original information” to the Commission. Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c)(3), 17 C.F.R. 

do not 

Redacted

constitute internal reporting to an entity by a claimant whistleblower, as contemplated in Rule 21F-4(c)(3). 

9 
Fourth, Claimant 1 argues that he/she provided the Commission with substantial ongoing 

assistance regarding the Company’s including submitting the 

Email and the Email, which mirrored key findings in Covered 

Action 2. However, the Email and the Email were both addressed 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

and sent to only Regional Office 1 Staff, who was investigating other conduct by the Company 

unrelated to the subject matter of the Regional Office 3 Investigation that resulted in Covered 

Action 2. Regional Office 1 Staff was not involved in the Regional Office 3 Investigation or 

Redacted *** Redacted

Covered Action 2. The Regional Office 3 Supplemental Declaration confirms that the 

Email, the Email, and the information contained therein did not play any role 

in the opening of the Regional Office 3 Investigation or otherwise impact the Regional Office 3 

Investigation or Covered Action 2. Specifically, according to the Regional Office 3 

Supplemental Declaration, although Regional Office 1 Staff provided Regional Office 3 Staff 

with information that originated from Claimant 1, such information was either already known by 

Regional Office 3 Staff as a result of its investigative efforts or was not relevant to the Regional 

Office 3 Investigation. Regional Office 3 Staff first learned of Claimant 1 and his/her 

Redacted

information from Regional Office 1 Staff in or around at that time, Regional 

Office 3 Staff was already in settlement talks with the Company to resolve the Regional Office 3 

Investigation. 

Finally, Claimant 1’s argument that his/her information contributed to Covered Action 1 

is contradicted by the Regional Office 2 Declaration, which confirms that Regional Office 2 

Staff did not receive any information provided by Claimant 1 before or during the Regional 

Office 2 Investigation. Because none of Claimant 1’s information was used in or had any impact 

on the findings by the Commission in Covered Action 1, Claimant 1 cannot receive any award in 

connection with Covered Action 1.14 

B. Claimant 2 

We deny an award to Claimant 2. The record demonstrates that Claimant 2 did not 

provide information that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Actions. According to 

the TCR System, Claimant 2’s tip was reviewed and considered by Regional Office 1 Staff who 

was investigating other conduct by the Company unrelated to the subject matter of the Regional 

Office 2 Investigation and the Regional Office 3 Investigation that resulted in the Covered 

Actions. 

Because Claimant 1 does not qualify for awards for either Covered Action 1 or Covered Action 2, we do 

not need to reach a determination as to whether Covered Action 1 and Covered Action 2 should be treated as one 

Covered Action because they arose from the same nucleus of operative facts, as argued by Claimant 1. 

10 

14 
We credit the Declarations, provided under penalty of perjury, in support of our 

conclusion to deny Claimant 2’s award claims. According to the Regional Office 1 Declaration, 

Redacted

during the Regional Office 1 Investigation, on or about Regional Office 1 Staff 

interviewed Claimant 2. Following the interview with Regional Office 1 Staff, Claimant 2 

Redacted ***

shared additional information by email with Regional Office 1 Staff. On or about 

Claimant 2 filed his/her tip with the Commission. Although Claimant 2’s tip was directly 

related to the Regional Office 1 Investigation, the tip was not the source of the Regional Office 1 

Redacted

Investigation. On the Regional Office 1 Investigation was closed due to 

insufficient evidence to support an enforcement action. Regional Office 1 Staff responsible for 

the Regional Office 1 Investigation did not work on the Regional Office 2 Investigation or the 

Regional Office 3 Investigation that resulted in the Covered Actions. 

According to the Regional Office 2 Staff Declaration and the Regional Office 3 Staff 

Declaration, neither the Regional Office 2 Investigation nor the Regional Office 3 Investigation 

was opened based on Claimant 2’s tip or any other information provided by Claimant 2. 

Claimant 2’s tip did not relate to the subject matter of the Regional Office 2 Investigation or the 

Regional Office 3 Investigation, and it was not the impetus for the Regional Office 2 

Investigation or the Regional Office 3 Investigation. Regional Office 2 Staff and Regional 

Office 3 Staff do not recall receiving any information provided by Claimant 2 before or during 

the Regional Office 2 Investigation or the Regional Office 3 Investigation. None of Claimant 2’s 

information was used in or had any impact on the findings by the Commission in the Covered 

Actions. 

Given these facts, there is no basis to grant Claimant 2 an award for the Covered Actions. 

Claimant 2’s arguments do not change this conclusion. 

First, the purported 

Redacted

referenced by Claimant 2 was not 

relevant to any of the investigations that resulted in the Covered Actions. The Regional Office 2 

Investigation was opened in or around following an internal sweep conducted 

by Commission staff. The Regional Office 3 Investigation was opened on or about

 as a result of responses to voluntary document requests Regional Office 3 Staff sent to 

the Company and other

 The voluntary document requests were sent out as part of an 

internally generated initiative that started in approximately 15 

Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

Additionally, the first time that Claimant 2 alleged that he/she provided information in connection with the 

was within Claimant 2’s response to the Preliminary Determination. Claimant 2 did 

not reference the in either his/her TCR—which states that Claimant 2 first became 

aware of misconduct in —or in Claimant 2’s application for a whistleblower award. 

11 

15 
Second, Claimant 2’s allegation that his/her information was perceived as being helpful 

by Regional Office 1 Staff is not pertinent to a determination of Claimant 2’s award claims with 

respect to the Covered Actions. Alleged statements made by Commission attorneys do not 

constitute legal conclusions regarding claimants’ eligibility for whistleblower awards. 

Moreover, the record confirms that contrary to Claimant 2’s allegations, his/her information was 

not helpful to either Covered Action 1 or Covered Action 2. 

Third, Claimant 2’s statement that his/her failure to

 is inapposite to the determination of 

Redacted Redacted

Claimant 2’s award claims.16 The factual record demonstrates that Claimant 2 did not provide 

information that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Actions. 

Finally, there is no support in the record for Claimant 2’s argument that the existence of a 

purported witness like Claimant 2 provided the Commission with leverage and hastened the 

Company’s agreement to settle the Covered Actions. As confirmed by Regional Office 2 Staff 

and Regional Office 3 Staff, Claimant 2’s information was not related to the subject matter of the 

Regional Office 2 Investigation or the Regional Office 3 Investigation, and his/her information 

was not the impetus for either investigation or the Covered Actions. 

III. Conclusion

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

Claimant 1 and Claimant 2 in connection with the Covered Actions be, and hereby are, denied. 

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary 

Because Claimant 2 is not eligible for an award, the factors under Rule 21F-6(a) for increasing a 

whistleblower award—including hardships experienced by a whistleblower, pursuant 21F-6(a)(2)(vi)—are not 

relevant to the determination to deny Claimant 2’s claim. 

12 

16