# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 19-1266 September Term, 2020 SEC-Rel3 4-87 662 SEC-Rel3 4-87 663 Filed O n: March 5, 20 21 Meghan Bela ski and Sco tt Nutt,

App ellant s
v . Secu rities an d E x chan ge Com mission ,

App ellee ON A PPE A L FROM THE SECURITIES A ND EXCHA NGE COMMISSI ON BEFORE: T ate l, Millett, a nd Rao, Circuit Judges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the Se curities a nd Exchange Com mission (“SEC”) and on the briefs f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). Upon consid eratio n o f the foregoing; th e m otion s for judicial n otice; the m otion s to supp lem entthe record, the op positio n to on e o f tho se mo tions, an d th e rep ly ; th e m otion to correct th e reco rd; a nd the m otion styled as a “mot ion t o reque st an am end me nt t o th is case, ” it is ORDERED tha t ap pellan ts’ May 22, 2 020 m otion to supp lem entthe record be grant ed in pa rt an d d enie d in part. T he mo tion is grant ed w ith resp ect t o what app ellant s de signate a s do cum ent s C-1 an d C-2. T he mo tion is oth erw ise de nied beca use the prof

fered m ate rial is notrelevant t o th e d isposition of this a ppe al. I t is FURTHER ORDERED tha t ap pellan ts’ rem aining m otion s to supp lem entthe record a nd mo tions for jud icial not ice be de nied be cause the prof fered m ate rial is not relevant to the dispo sition o f this a ppe al. I t is FURTHER ORDERED tha t ap pellan ts’ m otion to correct th e reco rd be de nied . It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e Dece mb er 5, 20 19 orde rs of the SEC d enying appe llants’ a pplicat ions for w histleb lower awards be af f irmed

. App ellant s argue t hatthe y are ent itled t o a relate d-actio n a ward b ased on informa tion the y provided to t he SEC. However, the SEC co rrectly de term ined tha t, b ecau se

# U n i ted S t a te s C ou r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 19-1266 September Term, 2020
app ellant s were n ot e ntitled to a co v ered -action award, th ey were n ot e v en eligible for a relate d-actio n a ward. Se e 1 5 U.S .C. § 78u -6(a)(5); 17 C.F.R. § 24 0.2 1F-11(a ); see also Claim for Award in Con nect ion with Reda cted Notice of Covered Act ion Re dact ed, Exchange ActRelea se No. 84 ,50 6, 2 018 W L 5 619 386 , at*3 n.5 (Oct. 3 0, 2 018 ). App ellant s ad dition ally

argue t hatcerta in irregularities in th e u nde rly ing w histleb lower proce edin g dem onst rate tha t th e p rocee ding was legally def icient. Bu t beca use app ellant s were n ot e lig ible for a relate d-actio n a ward, any such errors cou ld notha v e a f

fecte d th e o utco me of

the proce edin g and were t here fore h armle ss. S ee PDK L abs. Inc. v. U.S. DEA, 36 2 F.3 d 7 86, 79 9 (D.C. Cir. 20 04); see also Na t’l Ass’n o f Hom e B uilders v. Defend ers of W ildlife , 55 1 U.S . 64 4, 6 59– 60 (200 7). I t is FURTHER ORDERED tha t ap pellan ts’ m otion to request a n a me ndm entto this case be dism issed a s m oot

. Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter th e resolut ion o f

an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P . 41 (b); D.C. Cir. Rule 4 1.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2