_________________________________________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 97285 / April 11, 2023

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2023-49

_________________________________________________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Claims for an Award 

in connection with 

Notice of Covered Action 

Redacted

Redacted

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIMS 

The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued a Preliminary Determination recommending 

(“Claimant 1”) receive a whistleblower award of about $1 million, 

) of the monetary sanctions collected in the abovethat 

which represents percent ( 

Redacted Redacted ***

referenced Covered Action. The CRS further recommended the denial of the whistleblower 

award claim submitted by Redacted

(“Claimant 2”).

1 Claimant 2 filed a timely response 

contesting the preliminary denial. For the reasons discussed below, the CRS’s recommendations 

are adopted. 

I. Background

A. The Covered Action

On , the Commission filed the settled covered action against 

(“Firm”), a registered broker-dealer, finding that the Firm

 The Commission found that, 

Redacted Redacted RedactedRedacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted

The CRS also preliminarily determined to recommend that the award application of one other claimant be 

denied. The claimant did not submit a request for reconsideration and, as such, the Preliminary Determination with 

respect to his/her award claim became the Final Order of the Commission, pursuant to Rule 21F-10(f) promulgated 

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(f). 

Redacted

1
The Firm was found to have 

Among other relief, the Firm was ordered to pay disgorgement of prejudgment 

interest of and a civil money penalty of All amounts have been 

Redacted

Redacted Redacted

Redacted

Redacted Redacted Redacted

collected. 

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

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

Redacted

whistleblower award applications within 90 days. The 90-day deadline for this posting was 

While Claimant 1 submitted his/her award application before the deadline, 

Claimant 2 did not submit his/her award application until more than 17 months after the 

deadline. 

B. The Preliminary Determinations 

The CRS issued Preliminary Determinations recommending that Claimant 1 receive a ***

whistleblower award of of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action and that 

the award claim of Claimant 2 be denied because Claimant 2 failed to submit his/her claim for 

award to OWB within ninety days of the date of the Notice of Covered Action, as required under 

Rule 21F-10 of the Exchange Act.3 

C. Claimant 2’s Response to the Preliminary Determinations 

Claimant 2 submitted a timely written request contesting the Preliminary 

Determinations.4 In the reconsideration request, Claimant 2 contends that the Commission 

should exercise its authority under Exchange Act Rule 21F-8(a) to waive the award application 

deadline in the Covered Action. Claimant 2 asserts in support of his/her contention that at the 

time of the submission deadline, Claimant 2 was not represented by counsel and that, while 

3 Exchange Act Rules 21F-10(a) (“A claimant will have ninety (90) days from the date of the Notice of 

Covered Action to file a claim for an award based on that action, or the claim will be barred”) and 21F-10(b)(1) 

(“All claim forms, including any attachments, must be received by the Office of the Whistleblower within ninety 

Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, pet. for rev. denied sub 

nom. Cerny v. SEC, 707 F. App’x 29 (2d Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2005 (2018). 

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

(90) calendar days of the date of the Notice of Covered Action in order to be considered for an award”). See also Redacted

2
he/she had submitted award claims for matters for which he/she had directly provided 

information, Claimant 2 was not aware that he/she could submit an award claim based on 

Commission enforcement actions brought against other entities arising out of the same 

investigation for which he/she had not provided specific information or given direct testimony. 

Claimant 2 concludes that it is unfair that Claimant 1, whom Claimant 2 asserts used Claimant 

2’s information, is being rewarded while Claimant 2 is denied an award.

5 

II. Analysis 

A. Claimant 1 

The record demonstrates that Claimant 1 voluntarily provided original information to the 

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

Redacted

In reaching this 

Redacted

determination, we considered that Claimant 1’s tip was the initial source of the underlying 

investigation and caused the opening of the investigation. Further, Claimant 1 provided the 

Commission’s investigative staff with extensive and ongoing assistance during the course of the 

investigation, including identifying witnesses, and helping staff understand complex fact patterns 

and issues related to the matters under investigation. Claimant 1’s information and assistance 

5 Claimant 2 contends that, if the Commission were to exercise its discretionary authority to waive the latefiled award claim and consider his/her award claim, it should find that much of the information for which the CRS 

credited Claimant 1 with having provided first was, in actuality, information Claimant 1 had received from Claimant 

2. Since, as discussed below, we have decided it is not appropriate here to exercise our discretionary authority to 

waive Claimant 2’s failure to submit his/her award claim by the deadline set out in the Notice of Covered Action, we 

have not addressed, and make no findings, on these contentions. 

6 See Exchange Act Section 21F(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1); Exchange Act Rule 21F-3(a), 17 C.F.R. § 

240.21F-3(a). 

Redacted

Redacted

3
allowed the Commission to devise an investigative plan and to craft its initial document requests 

from the Firm and other entities. Finally, Claimant 1 was an important source of specific 

information for the Covered Action. 

B. Claimant 2 

The requirement that claimants file whistleblower award claims within ninety days of the 

posting of a Notice of Covered Action (“NoCA”), set forth in Exchange Act Rule 21F-10, serves 

important programmatic functions. The deadline ensures fairness to potential claimants by 

giving all an equal opportunity to have their competing claims evaluated at the same time. The 

deadline also brings finality to the claims process so that the Commission can make timely 

awards to meritorious whistleblowers.9 

Claimant 2 does not dispute that his/her award claim was submitted after the deadline 

specified in the Notice of Covered Action. Rather, as noted, Claimant 2 argues that the 

Commission should exercise its authority under Exchange Act Rule 21F-8(a) to waive the 

ninety-day filing requirement for the Covered Action. Rule 21F-8(a) provides that “the 

Commission may, in its sole discretion, waive any of the [information submission and claim 

making] procedures upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.”10 We have explained that 

the “extraordinary circumstances” exception is “narrowly construed” and requires an untimely 

claimant to show that “the reason for the failure to timely file was beyond the claimant’s 

control.”11 Further, we have identified “attorney misconduct or serious illness” that prevented a 

timely filing as two examples of the “demanding showing” that an applicant must make before 

we will consider exercising our discretionary authority to excuse an untimely filing.12 The 

critical question is whether the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the late-filing or other 

procedural deficiency were sufficiently beyond the control of the claimant to support an exercise 

of our discretionary authority under Rule 21F-8(a) to excuse the untimeliness.13 Moreover, 

“[e]ven when circumstances beyond the applicant’s control give rise to the delay . . . an applicant 

must also demonstrate that he or she promptly arranged for the filing . . . as soon as reasonably 

practical thereafter.”14 

9 See Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 

Release No. 64545, 76 Fed. Reg. 34300, 34300. See also Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, 

Exchange Act Rel. No. 96765 at 4 (Jan. 30, 2023); and Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, Exchange 

Act Rel. No. 95711 at 2-3 (Sept. 9, 2022). 

10 Exchange Act Rule 21F-8(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-8(a). 

11 Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 96765 at 4 (Jan. 30, 2023) 

(internal citations omitted); Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 95711 at 3 

(Sept. 9, 2022) (internal citations omitted). 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 

14 Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 96765 at 4 (January 30, 2023) 

(internal citations omitted). 

4
Claimant 2 has failed to meet the demanding standard for showing that there were 

extraordinary circumstances beyond Claimant 2’s control that caused the failure to file his/her 

award claim by the deadline. Claimant 2’s stated belief that a claimant can only be eligible for 

an award if his or her tip or testimony to the Commission specifically mentioned the subject of 

the covered action does not excuse Claimant 2’s failure to file by the deadline. “[A] lack of 

awareness about the [whistleblower award] program does not . . . rise to the level of an 

extraordinary circumstance as a general matter [since] potential claimants bear the ultimate 

responsibility to learn about the program and to take the appropriate steps to perfect their award 

applications.”15 Claimant 2’s limited understanding of the whistleblower rules is not an 

“extraordinary circumstance[]” that should trigger the Commission’s discretion to excuse the fact 

that Claimant 2 submitted his/her award application more than a year after the deadline. Further, 

while Claimant 2 was unrepresented at the time of the deadline for submitting his/her Form WBAPP, he/she still waited nearly a year after obtaining representation to file his/her award 

application. Accordingly, we do not believe it is appropriate here to exercise our discretionary 

authority under Rule 21F-8(a) to excuse Claimant 2’s untimely filing. 

III. Conclusion

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

percent ( ***) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action. It is further 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. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary 

Id. at 5. 

5

15