Court Opinion

ID: 9955257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 21:00:39.96429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:23.128579
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14011    Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024    Page: 1 of 24

                                                                [PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-14011
                           ____________________

        JOHN MEISEL,
                                                                Petitioner,
        versus
        SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

                                                               Respondent.

                           ____________________

                    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                     Securities and Exchange Commission
                              Agency No. 2017-150
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024    Page: 2 of 24

        2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-14011

        Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and MARCUS,
        Circuit Judges.
        MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
               At issue today is a challenge to the United States Securities
        and Exchange Commission’s (the “Commission”) denial of a whis-
        tleblower award. The Commission filed a civil action relating to a
        Ponzi scheme against several defendants in the United States Dis-
        trict Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Petitioner John
        Meisel read about the action in the newspaper and suspected that
        his former tenant, Jeremy Hixson, was part of the scheme. Meisel
        called the Commission’s trial attorneys and informed them of his
        suspicions. Meisel also corresponded with a court-appointed re-
        ceiver and provided information that assisted the receiver in recov-
        ering funds related to the scheme. After judgment was entered
        against the defendants in the Commission’s action, Meisel applied
        for a whistleblower award. The Commission denied his applica-
        tion and Meisel filed a petition for review with this Court.
              Meisel claims that the Commission’s denial of a whistle-
        blower award was arbitrary and capricious and was not supported
        by substantial evidence. However, the Commission’s denial of an
        award was based on two sworn declarations by a Commission at-
        torney who worked closely on the investigation and who unam-
        biguously stated that the Commission did not use the information
        provided by Meisel in any way. These statements, credited by the
        Commission, sufficiently support the Commission’s action with
        substantial evidence.
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 3 of 24

        22-14011               Opinion of the Court                         3

                Moreover, Meisel’s assistance to the receiver does not qual-
        ify for an award because the receiver is an independent court of-
        ficer, and giving information to the receiver does not satisfy the
        statutory requirement of giving information to the Commission.
        Finally, Meisel does not qualify for an award based on any “related
        actions” brought against Hixson, because the statute and regula-
        tions require that Meisel qualify under the Covered Action as a pre-
        requisite to bringing in any related actions, which he does not.
              Accordingly, we deny Meisel’s petition for review.
                                          I.
                                         A.
               Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as modified
        by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
        Act (the “Act”), the Commission “shall pay an award” to “whistle-
        blowers who voluntarily provided original information to the
        Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the covered
        judicial or administrative action, or related action.” 15 U.S.C.
        § 78u-6(b)(1). A covered action is an action “brought by the Com-
        mission under the securities laws that results in monetary sanctions
        exceeding $1,000,000.” Id. § 78u-6(a)(1). A related action is an ac-
        tion brought by the Attorney General, an appropriate regulatory
        authority, a self-regulatory organization, or a state attorney general
        in connection with a criminal investigation based upon infor-
        mation provided by a whistleblower “that led to the successful en-
        forcement of the Commission action.” Id. § 78u-6(a)(5).
USCA11 Case: 22-14011         Document: 42-1          Date Filed: 03/27/2024         Page: 4 of 24

        4                          Opinion of the Court                        22-14011

               The Act further states that the “Commission shall have the
        authority to issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary
        or appropriate to implement” the whistleblower program. Id.
        § 78u-6(j). Pursuant to this authority, the Commission has prom-
        ulgated rules for the whistleblower program, codified at 17 C.F.R.
        §§ 240.21F-1 through 240.21F-18 (“Rule 21F-1 through Rule 21F-
        18”).
               Among other requirements, Rule 21F-4 provides that whis-
        tleblower information “leads to successful enforcement” of the
        covered action if: (1) the whistleblower provides original infor-
        mation to the Commission that causes the Commission to “com-
        mence an examination, open an investigation, reopen an investiga-
        tion that the Commission had closed, or to inquire concerning dif-
        ferent conduct as part of a current examination or investigation,”
        and the Commission subsequently brings a successful action based
        in whole or in part on the information; or (2) the whistleblower
        provides “original information about conduct that was already un-
        der examination or investigation,” and that information “signifi-
        cantly contributed to the success of the action.” Id. § 240.21F-
        4(c)(1), (2). 1 Rule 21F-4(c) is exhaustive: a whistleblower is entitled
        to an award only if one of the Rule 21F-4(c) standards is satisfied.
        Doe v. SEC, 28 F.4th 1306, 1312–13 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (per curiam)

        1       Rule 21F-4(c)(3) contemplates a third scenario involving internal whis-
        tleblower procedures not at issue in this case and, in any event, information
        provided under (c)(3) must also satisfy “either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this
        section.” 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-4(c)(3).
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024    Page: 5 of 24

        22-14011              Opinion of the Court                        5

        (citing Securities Whistleblower Incentives & Protections, 76 Fed.
        Reg. 34300, 34357 n.438). A claimant’s failure to satisfy any one of
        these statutory requirements will doom his whistleblower award
        application.
               Additionally, whistleblower information must be provided
        directly “to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or
        regulation, by the Commission.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6). The
        Commission has established the manner required in Rule 21F-9,
        which requires that a whistleblower submit information to the
        Commission using a “Form TCR” submitted to the Commission
        by mail, fax, or online portal within 30 days of first providing the
        Commission with information. 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-9(a), (e).
                                        B.
                On May 29, 2014, the Commission filed a civil enforcement
        action in the United States District Court for the Northern District
        of Ohio against several individuals—Thomas Abdallah, Kenneth
        Grant, Mark George, Jeffrey Gainer, and Jerry Cicolani, Jr.—in-
        volved in a Ponzi scheme (the “Covered Action” or the “Abdallah
        case”). In essence, the Commission alleged that the defendants in
        the Abdallah case marketed their company, KGTA Petroleum, Ltd.
        (“KGTA”), to investors as a petroleum company that earned profits
        by buying and reselling crude oil and refined fuel products. The
        KGTA investment “opportunity” promised astronomical returns
        with no risk. In reality, however, KGTA never bought or sold fuel
        or oil, and funds raised from new investors were used to pay fake
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024    Page: 6 of 24

        6                     Opinion of the Court                 22-14011

        returns to old investors and to generate cash for Grant’s and Abdal-
        lah’s personal use.
               Around the same time that the KGTA scheme was taking
        place, Meisel rented a house to Hixson. While Hixson was a ten-
        ant, he paid monthly rent to Meisel with checks drawn from the
        account of an entity called Quest Innovation LLC (“Quest”).
        Quest’s address was listed as the house Meisel was renting to
        Hixson. Meisel asked Hixson about Quest, and Hixson told Meisel
        that Quest served a dual purpose of hiding finances from his wife
        during a divorce proceeding and as a business account for a “side
        business arrangement” in which Hixson was involved. On another
        occasion, Hixson told Meisel that he was “set up” in a business ar-
        rangement with someone selling surplus oil and gas, and that he
        was earning over $20,000 a month in commissions from investors.
              In June 2014, Meisel read a newspaper article about the
        KGTA scheme and the Commission’s lawsuit against the Abdallah
        defendants. Based on details in the article and the statements
        Hixson had made to him, Meisel became suspicious that Hixson
        was involved in the KGTA scheme.
               On July 7, 2014, Meisel contacted Timothy Leiman, a Com-
        mission lawyer listed in the lawsuit, who was in fact a senior trial
        counsel for the Commission. Meisel shared with Leiman his suspi-
        cions that Hixson was connected to the KGTA scheme. Meisel also
        told Leiman about Quest, and his belief that Quest was used to hide
        money received from KGTA.
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 7 of 24

        22-14011               Opinion of the Court                         7

               In August, Meisel accessed the PACER court filing system of
        his own accord and reviewed publicly available documents on the
        Abdallah case docket, including one titled “Gainer Spreadsheets”
        that was attached as an exhibit to the Commission’s Emergency
        Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. As Meisel observed,
        the Gainer Spreadsheets contained many entries referring to
        “Quest” or “Quest Innovation.” Meisel also observed that the
        Gainer Spreadsheets contained entries that stated “hix gets half”
        that were used in connection with notations for “Quest Innova-
        tions.” On August 25, 2014, Meisel made a submission to the Com-
        mission through the Tips, Complaints, and Referrals system—a
        “Form TCR”—containing a written summary of his efforts to date,
        as well as a detailed account of what he had learned from reviewing
        the Gainer Spreadsheets.
               On December 3, 2014, the district court in the Covered Ac-
        tion appointed a receiver “for the purposes of marshaling and pre-
        serving all assets of the Defendants and Relief Defendants.” The
        court authorized the receiver to bring legal actions necessary to dis-
        charge his duties. In December 2016, the receiver filed an action
        against Quest in the Northern District of Ohio “to recover receiv-
        ership property.” Between 2016 and 2020, Meisel communicated
        with the receiver continuously to provide facts, information, and
        analysis to assist the receiver with recovering receivership prop-
        erty.
               On May 10, 2016, Hixson pleaded guilty in the United States
        District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to bankruptcy
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 8 of 24

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14011

        fraud and two counts of making false statements. On March 13,
        2017, the Commission began an administrative proceeding against
        Hixson, reflecting a settlement in which Hixson agreed to be
        barred from associating with certain securities industries profes-
        sionals and from participating in any offering of penny stock. The
        Commission’s administrative proceeding against Hixson included
        no monetary relief.
               Between 2017 and 2018, the Commission obtained final
        judgments against Abdallah, Grant, George, Gainer, and Cicolani
        in the Covered Action. Grant, Abdallah, George, Gainer, Cicolani,
        and Cicolani’s girlfriend, Kelly Hood, all later pleaded guilty in the
        United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to
        federal criminal charges for their roles in the KGTA Ponzi scheme.
                                         C.
              On October 31, 2017, The Commission’s Office of the Whis-
        tleblower posted a Notice of Covered Action for the Abdallah case.
        On January 22, 2018, Meisel submitted an award application for the
        Covered Action.
                On July 15, 2020, the Commission made a Preliminary De-
        termination denying Meisel’s award claim. Attached to the Com-
        mission’s Preliminary Determination, and dated the same day, was
        a declaration by Christopher White, an attorney in the Commis-
        sion’s Division of Enforcement (the “Initial Declaration”). In the
        Initial Declaration, White stated that he was one of the “primary
        Enforcement attorneys” assigned to the KGTA Ponzi scheme in-
        vestigation. The Initial Declaration concluded:
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024    Page: 9 of 24

        22-14011              Opinion of the Court                        9

              Meisel’s information did not contribute to the Abdal-
              lah case. The Commission’s complaint had already
              been ﬁled before Meisel contacted us. His TCR sub-
              mission states that reading a news article about the
              Abdallah case was what caused him to realize Hixson
              might be involved in a Ponzi scheme. By the time
              Meisel contacted us, we had already seen the checks
              from KGTA to Quest Innovations, we had already ob-
              tained the spreadsheets from Gainer stating that his
              commissions should be split with “hix” and “quest”,
              and we already knew Hixson introduced an investor
              to Gainer. The information Meisel provided about
              the rent payments Hixson made from Quest’s ac-
              count and the statements Hixson made to Meisel was
              new, but that information was not used in the Abdal-
              lah case. All of the other information subsequently
              provided by Meisel to Leiman or me was already
              known to the staﬀ.

               Meisel filed a timely response and request for reconsidera-
        tion on September 30, 2020.
               On November 4, 2022, the Commission issued a final order
        denying Meisel’s claim for a whistleblower award. In the order,
        the Commission explained that, as a threshold issue, Meisel first
        provided information to the Commission four months after the
        Commission opened its investigation and over a month after it filed
        its complaint, so he “cannot be credited with causing the staff to
        open an investigation.” Second, the Commission stated that
        Meisel’s information did not significantly contribute to the success
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 10 of 24

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-14011

        of the Covered Action, because attorney White stated that Meisel’s
        information did not advance the investigation, and the Commis-
        sion credited that declaration. The Commission also rejected
        Meisel’s argument that the Commission’s subsequent administra-
        tive proceeding against Hixson should be treated as part of the Cov-
        ered Action, because the application of the relevant rule “is predi-
        cated upon [Meisel] qualifying for an award for the Covered Ac-
        tion,” and in any event the rule only applies to “proceedings which
        result in a monetary sanction,” which the administrative proceed-
        ing did not. Finally, the Commission rejected Meisel’s argument
        that he contributed to the Covered Action through assistance to
        the receiver “[b]ecause the Receiver does not work for the Com-
        mission or represent the interests of the Commission, [so] any in-
        formation [Meisel] provided to the Receiver does not qualify [him]
        for a whistleblower award.”
                Attached to the Commission’s final order was a supple-
        mental declaration from White, dated October 3, 2022 (the “Sup-
        plemental Declaration”). The Supplemental Declaration reaf-
        firmed and incorporated all the statements in the Initial Declara-
        tion. The Supplemental Declaration also stated that “[t]he staff first
        became aware of [Hixson] and Quest Innovations no later than
        March 2014. The staff was already aware of . . . Hixson’s . . . in-
        volvement with Quest no later than April 18, 2014.” White also
        stated that “Meisel’s information was not a motivating factor in the
        staff’s decision to interview Hixson. Nor did the information pro-
        vided by Hixson during his August 7, 2014 interview advance the
        Abdallah Investigation or contribute to the charges brought in the
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 11 of 24

        22-14011                Opinion of the Court                         11

        Covered Action.” Finally, White said, “Meisel’s information did
        not help or otherwise provide an advantage to the staff during set-
        tlement discussions with the defendants in the Covered Action.”
               This timely petition for review followed.
                                          II.
                On a petition for review, this Court will “hold unlawful and
        set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” that are “arbi-
        trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accord-
        ance with law” or “unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
        § 706(2)(A), (E). The Commission’s application of the law is re-
        viewed de novo. See Harner v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 38 F.4th 892,
        896 (11th Cir. 2022). In reviewing the Commission’s factual find-
        ings, substantial evidence “requires more than a scintilla”; it “is less
        than a preponderance, but rather such relevant evidence as a rea-
        sonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
        Viverette v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 13 F.4th 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2021)
        (citations and quotation marks omitted). Finally, in our substantial
        evidence review, “we may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the
        evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [agency].” Id.
        (citation and quotation marks omitted). “[W]hatever the meaning
        of ‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary
        sufficiency is not high.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154
        (2019).
                                          A.
             The Commission’s conclusion that Meisel did not qualify for
        an award for the Covered Action was neither arbitrary nor
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024    Page: 12 of 24

        12                     Opinion of the Court                22-14011

        capricious, nor was it unsupported by substantial evidence. As we
        previously described, the Commission “shall pay an award” to any
        “whistleblower[] who voluntarily provided original information to
        the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the cov-
        ered judicial or administrative action.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1).
        This language is unambiguous: the statute calls for “original infor-
        mation . . . that led to the successful enforcement”–not information
        that could have led or may have led or would have led to a successful
        enforcement, if only the Commission had used it. See id. (emphasis
        added). Because there can be no dispute that the Commission’s
        investigation was already underway and an action had been filed in
        district court by the time Meisel learned of the scheme in the news-
        paper and began to investigate, he does not argue that he caused
        the Commission to open or reopen an investigation. Instead,
        Meisel claims that his information “significantly contributed to the
        success of the action” already under investigation. See 17 C.F.R.
        § 240.21F-4(c)(2). In determining whether information “signifi-
        cantly contributes” to the success of an action, the Commission
        considers, among other things, whether the information allowed
        the action to be brought “in significantly less time or with signifi-
        cantly fewer resources,” if there were “additional successful
        claims,” or if there were “successful claims against additional indi-
        viduals or entities.” Securities Whistleblower Incentives & Protec-
        tions, 76 Fed. Reg. 34300, 34325 (June 13, 2011).
              As the record reflects, the Commission’s final determination
        that Meisel did not meet any part of this standard is supported by
        the two sworn declarations by White. White was one of the
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024      Page: 13 of 24

        22-14011               Opinion of the Court                        13

        primary enforcement attorneys assigned to the investigation that
        led to the Covered Action. In both the Initial Declaration and the
        Supplemental Declaration, White states in no uncertain terms that
        “Meisel’s information did not contribute to the Abdallah case,” nor
        did it “lead to any monetary recovery.” Moreover, White added
        that “Meisel’s information was not a motivating factor in the staff’s
        decision to interview Hixson,” nor did it “help or otherwise pro-
        vide an advantage to the staff during settlement discussions with
        the defendants in the Covered Action.”
               White also says that by the time Meisel contacted the Com-
        mission, the Commission had already seen the checks from KGTA
        to Quest Innovations, had obtained spreadsheets from Gainer stat-
        ing that commissions should be split with “hix” and “quest,” and
        was aware of Hixson’s connection to the KGTA scheme. White
        notes that most of the information provided by Meisel related to
        Hixson, Quest, and Hixson’s wife, and none of them were charged
        as part of the Covered Action. The Supplemental Declaration con-
        cluded that,
              [a]s stated in the Initial Declaration, aside from infor-
              mation about rent payments made by Hixson from
              Quest’s account and Hixson’s statements to [Meisel]
              –neither of which advanced the Abdallah Investiga-
              tion or contributed to the charges in the Covered Ac-
              tion–the information Meisel provided was already
              known to the staﬀ from a source other than Meisel
              and prior to Meisel’s contact with Commission staﬀ.
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 03/27/2024   Page: 14 of 24

        14                    Opinion of the Court                22-14011

        These declarations–which were both credited by and relied upon
        by the Commission–provide “more than a scintilla” of evidence
        that the Commission did not use the information provided by
        Meisel in the Covered Action. The declarations would also allow
        a reasonable person to conclude that Meisel’s information did not
        significantly contribute to the Covered Action. Viverette, 13 F.4th
        at 1314.
               Meisel’s challenges to the Commission’s conclusions are un-
        persuasive. First, Meisel argues that although the Commission
        may have known about Hixson’s and Quest’s connections to the
        KGTA scheme individually, it was impossible for the Commission
        to have known about Hixson’s connection to Quest without the
        information provided by Meisel. But the Supplemental Declara-
        tion directly states that Commission staff were aware of Hixson’s
        involvement with Quest prior to any contact by Meisel, and the
        Commission credited this assertion. Meisel also argues that the
        statements in the White Declarations are not true, but we may not
        substitute our judgment of the facts for the Commission’s. See id.
        The sworn declarations provide “such relevant evidence as a rea-
        sonable person would accept as adequate to support” the conclu-
        sion that the Commission did, in fact, make the connection be-
        tween Hixson and Quest prior to Meisel’s information. Id. (citation
        omitted). At this point, we must defer to the Commission’s judg-
        ment.
             Second, Meisel claims that there is a fatal contradiction be-
        tween White’s Initial Declaration and his Supplemental
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 15 of 24

        22-14011               Opinion of the Court                        15

        Declaration that must bar the Commission from crediting either
        declaration. Specifically, Meisel points out that the Initial Declara-
        tion states that, “[o]n August 18, 2014, [White] learned through
        [his] investigative efforts that Hixson had admitted to an investor
        that Quest was an entity owned by him and his wife, and that Quest
        had been paid fees from KGTA for the investor’s investments.”
        The Supplemental Declaration states that “[t]he staff first became
        aware of [Hixson] and Quest Innovations no later than March 2014.
        The staff was already aware of both Hixson’s and [his wife’s] in-
        volvement with Quest no later than April 18, 2014.” Meisel sug-
        gests that we must read these declarations as contradictory because
        the first declaration pinpoints August 2014 as the time when the
        staff became aware of Hixson–which would bolster Meisel’s asser-
        tion that his July 2014 communications with the Commission were
        particularly relevant–while the second declaration pushes the date
        of the Commission’s awareness of Hixson back several months, to
        April 2014, crippling Meisel’s claim.
               We do not read the chronology, however, as necessarily cre-
        ating a conflict, let alone a fatal one. In fact, upon careful review,
        White’s two declarations can be read as establishing a consistent
        timeline: by March 2014, the staff had Hixson and Quest on their
        radar; on April 18, the staff was aware of Hixson’s and his wife’s
        involvement with Quest; and then on August 18, White learned
        that Hixson admitted to an investor that he owned Quest, and that
        KGTA paid Quest. Because we defer to the Commission’s judg-
        ment of the facts, and it is readily possible to do so, we too must
        read the statements as consistent. See id.
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 16 of 24

        16                     Opinion of the Court                  22-14011

               In any event, even if the declarations necessarily created a
        genuine inconsistency as to those dates–which we do not find–this
        inconsistency still would not change White’s consistent assertions
        that the information Meisel provided the Commission did not con-
        tribute in any way to the Covered Action. Again, where these
        statements have been credited by the Commission, “findings of fact
        made by administrative agencies, such as the [Commission], may
        be reversed by this court only when the record compels a reversal;
        the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is
        not enough to justify a reversal of the administrative findings.”
        Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004). Even if
        Meisel were correct that he first connected Hixson to Quest, it was
        not unreasonable for the Commission to conclude that this infor-
        mation did not significantly contribute to the Covered Action.
               In short, the Commission’s conclusion that Meisel did not
        qualify for a whistleblower award was neither arbitrary nor capri-
        cious, nor unsupported by substantial evidence.
                                          B.
               Meisel also argues that the Commission did not properly
        credit him for the assistance he gave to the court-appointed re-
        ceiver between 2016 and 2020. To Meisel’s credit, the receiver
        wrote a letter stating that Meisel provided him “new information
        that was unknown to [the receiver] at the time,” that was meaning-
        ful and useful in the receiver’s efforts to recover assets for the ben-
        efit of the victims of the KGTA Ponzi scheme. However,
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 17 of 24

        22-14011               Opinion of the Court                         17

        regardless of how helpful or laudable Meisel’s assistance was to the
        receiver, assisting the receiver does not qualify Meisel for an award.
               The plain text of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6) states that a whistle-
        blower is an individual who provides information “to the Commis-
        sion, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Com-
        mission.” See also id. § 78u-6(b)(1) (stating that the Commission
        shall pay an award to a whistleblower who “voluntarily provided
        original information to the Commission that led to the successful en-
        forcement of the covered judicial or administrative action, or re-
        lated action” (emphasis added)). Rule 21F-9 governs the proce-
        dures for submitting information as the basis of a claim for a whis-
        tleblower award. See generally 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-9. In relevant
        part, Rule 21F-9 requires that a whistleblower must submit infor-
        mation to the Commission in a “Form TCR” mailed, faxed, or sub-
        mitted to the Commission through an online portal. Id. § 240.21F-
        9(a). Compliance with these rules is necessary to qualify for the
        benefits of being a whistleblower. See Digit. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Som-
        ers, 583 U.S. 149, 160–61 (2018) (holding in the context of another
        subsection of 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6 that a “whistleblower” is a person
        who provides information to the Commission specifically, not to
        any other entity).
              Meisel does not claim that he provided any of the infor-
        mation he gave to the receiver directly to the Commission by any
        means, much less by using a Form TCR as required by 17 C.F.R.
USCA11 Case: 22-14011       Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 03/27/2024        Page: 18 of 24

        18                       Opinion of the Court                     22-14011

        § 240.21F-9. 2 Because Meisel concedes that he never provided any
        of the information he gave to the receiver to the Commission, he
        is statutorily barred from qualifying for an award in connection to
        that information.
               Meisel’s rebuttals are unpersuasive. Meisel first urges that
        giving information to the receiver is the same as giving information
        to the Commission, on the theory that the receiver is a “de facto
        agent of the SEC,” merely in “the guise of being an officer of the
        court,” and that the receiver consequently was “acting as a repre-
        sentative and conduit of information by which the SEC benefits.”
        However, as the Commission’s internal rules tell us:
               Although the Commission may seek the appointment
               of a receiver in an enforcement action ﬁled in federal
               court, a receiver does not work for the Commission,
               represent the interests of the Commission, or even
               represent the interests of investors. Rather, a receiver
               is an oﬃcer of the court, appointed by the court to
               take custody of assets over which the court asserts ju-
               risdiction (the receivership estate), for the beneﬁt of
               all persons whom the court may later adjudge to have
               rights in the property.

        2       Although Meisel had submitted a Form TCR to the Commission in
        2014, covering the information he told Leiman over the phone and his review
        of the Gainer Spreadsheets, Meisel’s assistance to the receiver did not begin
        until 2016.
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 03/27/2024      Page: 19 of 24

        22-14011                Opinion of the Court                          19

        Whistleblower Program Rules, 85 Fed. Reg. 70898, 70905 (Nov. 5,
        2020).
                   That receivers are officers of the court, not agents or repre-
        sentatives of a party, is also long established in case law. See, e.g.,
        Sterling v. Stewart, 158 F.3d 1199, 1201 n.2 (11th Cir. 1998) (“A re-
        ceiver is a neutral court officer appointed by the court, usually to
        ‘take control, custody, or management of property that is involved
        in or is likely to become involved in litigation for the purpose of
        . . . undertaking any [ ] appropriate action.’” (quoting 12 Charles
        Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice
        and Procedure § 2981, at 5 (1973))); SEC v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1577
        (11th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he Receiver is an officer of the court. Even
        though the Receiver may at times take adverse positions to certain
        claimants, the Receiver acts under supervision of the court . . . .”
        (citations omitted)); Booth v. Clark, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 322, 327
        (1854) (“A receiver is an officer of the court which appoints him
        . . . .”).
              The Commission’s final order was therefore correct in con-
        cluding that “[b]ecause the Receiver does not work for the Com-
        mission or represent the interests of the Commission, any infor-
        mation [Meisel] provided to the Receiver does not qualify [him] for
        a whistleblower award.”
               Meisel resists this conclusion, arguing first that the receiver
        was only authorized to recover receivership property in consulta-
        tion with the Commission. However, as the Commission ob-
        serves, the receiver nevertheless retained unilateral power to
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024      Page: 20 of 24

        20                      Opinion of the Court                  22-14011

        undertake such investigations or initiate such actions, save only
        that leave of the court, not the Commission, was required to re-
        sume or commence certain litigation.
                Meisel next says that the receiver was required to submit to
        the Commission routine billing. While it is true that the receiver
        must serve upon counsel for the Commission “a complete copy of
        the proposed [quarterly fee] Application” at least thirty days prior
        to filing it with the court, the receiver ultimately “shall apply to the
        Court for compensation and expense reimbursement.” It is the
        court, not the Commission, that approves and compensates the re-
        ceiver’s fees.
               Third, Meisel claims that because the Commission had an
        obligation to assist the receiver in locating assets, Meisel’s assis-
        tance to the receiver in turn assisted the Commission in fulfilling
        its duty. But here, Meisel has conflated two distinct concepts: in-
        formation that may be helpful to the Commission and giving infor-
        mation to the Commission. Just because information Meisel pro-
        vided to a third party ultimately may be helpful to the Commission
        in no way eliminated his obligation to give the information to the
        Commission, as is required by statute and regulation.
               Similarly, Meisel misunderstands how the “original source”
        exception applies. Meisel cites to Rule 21F-4(b)(5) to argue that,
        because he was the original source of the information, he could
        give the information to the receiver and the information would
        “flow through” the Receiver to the Commission. But this is not
        how the original source exception applies. Rule 21F-4(b)(5), when
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 21 of 24

        22-14011               Opinion of the Court                        21

        read in the full context of the regulation, essentially says that if a
        whistleblower submits information to the Commission and the
        Commission had already heard the information from someone
        else, the whistleblower is nevertheless entitled to an award if he
        were the original source of the information that the Commission
        had already heard elsewhere. See generally 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-
        4(b)(5)–(6). What the exception does not do is entitle a whistle-
        blower to tell whomever he likes, but never tell the Commission,
        and then collect a whistleblower award when the Commission
        eventually receives the information from another source. See Doe
        (Claimant #2) v. SEC, No. 22-1652, 2023 WL 3562977, at *2 (3d Cir.
        Mar. 23, 2023) (upholding the denial of an award where claimant
        wrote a report that the Commission based its action on, but claim-
        ant only published the report online, where the Commission inde-
        pendently found it, and never provided the report directly to the
        Commission).
                Finally, Meisel relies upon a number of Commission orders
        determining the award claims for other whistleblower applica-
        tions, each of which bases the award given to the whistleblower on
        the successful monetary recovery by the receiver. Meisel argues
        that these orders “all support the inclusion of information given
        [to] a Receiver that is designed and intended to assist the Commis-
        sion, and which ultimately does so, as a proper basis for the award
        of whistleblower benefits.”
              Here again Meisel confuses two distinct concepts: qualifying
        for an award, and what the award itself is based on once a
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 22 of 24

        22                     Opinion of the Court                 22-14011

        whistleblower qualifies. It’s true that, once a whistleblower quali-
        fies for an award, the Commission has regularly treated money that
        the receivership was able to recover to be distributed to injured in-
        vestors as collected monetary sanctions upon which a whistle-
        blower’s award may be based. See, e.g., Order Determining Whis-
        tleblower Award Claim, Release No. 88015, 2020 WL 374345, at *1
        n.3 (Jan. 22, 2020) (“We have treated those amounts distributed to
        injured investors by the court-appointed receiver in the Covered
        Action as collected monetary sanctions on which Claimant’s award
        can be based.”); see also 17 C.F.R. 240.21F-4(e) (“Monetary sanc-
        tions means: (1) An order to pay money that results from a Com-
        mission action or related action which is either: (i) Expressly desig-
        nated as a penalty, disgorgement, or interest; or (ii) Otherwise or-
        dered as relief for the violations that are the subject of the covered
        action or related action . . . .” (emphasis added)). In other words,
        had Meisel qualified for an award in the first place, the orders he
        cites would have supported the proposition that money distributed
        by the receiver could have been used to calculate his award. But
        Meisel did not qualify for an award in the first place, and the orders
        do not say that assisting the receiver qualifies him for an award
        where he otherwise did not qualify.
                                         C.
               Finally, Meisel argues that he qualifies for an award in the
        related cases: namely, the criminal action against Hixson for fraud
        and false statements, the Commission’s administrative action
        against Hixson, and the Receiver’s action against Quest. Once
        again, Meisel’s arguments do not prevail.
USCA11 Case: 22-14011      Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024     Page: 23 of 24

        22-14011               Opinion of the Court                         23

               Title 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(5) reads this way:
               The term “related action” when used with respect to
               any judicial or administrative action brought by the
               Commission under the securities laws, means any ju-
               dicial or administrative action brought by [the U.S. At-
               torney General, an appropriate regulatory authority,
               a self-regulatory organization, or a state attorney gen-
               eral] that is based upon the original information pro-
               vided by a whistleblower pursuant to subsection (a)
               that led to the successful enforcement of the Com-
               mission action.

        See id. § 78u-6(a)(5) (referencing id. § 78u-6(h)(2)(D)(i)). Rule
        21F-11 clarifies that a whistleblower cannot independently qualify
        under a related action: instead, the whistleblower must qualify for
        an award under the Covered Action, and then may use related ac-
        tions to calculate the amount of the award for which the whistle-
        blower is eligible. See 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-11(a) (“If you are eligible
        to receive an award following a Commission action that results in
        monetary sanctions totaling more than $1,000,000, you also may
        be eligible to receive an award in connection with a related ac-
        tion.”).
                Rule 21F-11 is clear. Because Meisel is not eligible for an
        award in the Covered Action for the reasons we’ve already ex-
        plained, he cannot qualify for an award in any related actions. In
        any event, the administrative proceeding against Hixson did not
        result in any monetary penalty at all, so it could not contribute to-
        ward an award. Additionally, neither the receiver nor the
USCA11 Case: 22-14011     Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024    Page: 24 of 24

        24                     Opinion of the Court                22-14011

        Commission itself are one of the entities that may bring a “related
        action” as enumerated in 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(2)(D)(i). Therefore,
        the only potential “related action” at issue here is the criminal ac-
        tion in which Hixson pleaded guilty to bankruptcy fraud and two
        counts of making false statements, which yielded restitution in the
        amount of $73,794.32.
               The long and the short of it is that the evidence supports a
        finding that the Commission never used Meisel’s information and,
        because the Commission never used the information, Meisel’s in-
        formation did not lead to the success of the Covered Action. The
        Commission’s action was neither arbitrary nor capricious, nor was
        it unsupported by substantial evidence.
                              PETITION DENIED.