The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued Preliminary Determinations recommending that
summary
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has determined whistleblower awards for Claimant 1 and Claimant 2, who provided information leading to enforcement actions against a company and another ag
paragraph
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has determined whistleblower awards for Claimant 1 and Claimant 2, who provided information leading to enforcement actions against a company and another agency. Claimant 1 is awarded over $4 million, and Claimant 2 is awarded over $20 million, based on a percentage of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action and a related enforcement action. The awards reflect the significance of the information provided, the assistance in the investigation, and the law enforcement interest in deterring violations. Claimant 2’s contribution was deemed more critical due to expanded investigative efforts and assistance during the probe. Both claimants did not contest the preliminary award determinations.
narrative
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has determined whistleblower awards for Claimant 1 and Claimant 2, who provided information leading to enforcement actions against a company and another agency. Claimant 1 is awarded over $4 million, and Claimant 2 is awarded over $20 million, based on a percentage of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action and a related enforcement action. The awards reflect the significance of the information provided, the assistance in the investigation, and the law enforcement interest in deterring violations. Claimant 2’s contribution was deemed more critical due to expanded investigative efforts and assistance during the probe. Both claimants did not contest the preliminary award determinations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) awarded over $4 million to Claimant 1 and over $20 million to Claimant 2 for providing original information that led to enforcement actions against a company and a related agency. The awards were based on monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action and a related enforcement action. Claimant 2, despite falling under an officer exclusion, qualified for the award due to a 120-day exception after internally reporting the misconduct. The Commission considered factors such as the significance of the information, assistance provided, and law enforcement interests in determining the award amounts. The resolution reflects the contributions of both claimants in uncovering fraudulent conduct, with Claimant 2 playing a more significant role in the investigation.
Classified corporate-fraud(confidence 90%). EDGAR detection: forms 10-K/10-Q/8-K· recall 56% / precision 8%. detection rule →
Statutes
17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-3(b)17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-6Rule 21F-4(b)Rule 21F-3(b)Rule 21F-6
Keywords
claimantredactedcommissioncovered actionactionredacted redactedawardinformationrelated actionstaffcoveredwhistleblower awardrelatedpercentprovided
Extracted insights
Dollar amounts 3
- $20.00M $20 million $10M–$100M
- $4.00M $4 million $1M–$10M
- $1.00M $1 million $1M–$10M
Triples 9
- The Claims Review Staff issued Preliminary Determinations recommending that Claimant 1 receive a whistleblower award of over $4 million
- The Claims Review Staff issued Preliminary Determinations recommending that Claimant 2 receive a whistleblower award of over $20 million
- Claimants 1 and 2 provided written notices of their decisions not to contest the Preliminary Determinations
- The Commission may pay an award based on amounts collected in related actions
- The Commission finds that between the Company and Other Agency constitutes a “related action”
- Claimants 1 and 2 provided the same original information that led to the success of the Related Action
- Claimant 1’s information alerted Commission staff to potential violations prompting the opening of the investigation
- Claimant 1 unreasonably delayed reporting the conduct to the Commission
- Claimant 2’s information played a more significant role in the investigation
Text layers
Extracted body text (5,888c)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 100818 / August 26, 2024 WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING File No. 2024-38 In t he Matter of the Claims for Award in connection with Redacted Redacted Notice of Covered Action Redacted ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIMS The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued Preliminary Determinations recommending that (“Claimant 1”) receive a whistleblower award of over $4 million, equal to percent ( %), and that (“Claimant 2”) 1 receive a whistleblower award of over $20 million, equal to percent ( %), of the monetary Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted *** *** sanctions collected in the above-referenced Covered Action (“Covered Action”) and in connection with a between (“the Company”) and the (“Other Agency”), (“Related Action”). 2 Claimants 1 and 2 provided written notices of their decisions not to contest the Preliminary Determinations. RedactedRedacted RedactedRedacted Redacted The recommendations of the CRS are adopted. The record demonstrates that Claimant 1 and Claimant 2 voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the 1 While Claimant 2 falls within the officer exclusion under Rule 21F-4(b)(4)(iii)(A), Claimant 2 satisfies the 120-day exception under Rule 21F-4(b)(4)(v) because he/she reported the conduct internally to the a mong others, and then waited more than 120 days to report to the Commission. 2 The Commission may pay an award based on amounts collected in related actions that are based on the same original information that the whistleblower voluntarily provided to the Commission and that led the Commission to obtain monetary sanctions totaling more than $1 million. Redacted Exchange Act Rule 21F-3(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-3(b). The Commission finds that between the Company and Other Agency constitutes a “related action” within the meaning of Exchange Act Rules 21F-3(b) and 21F-4(d)(3)(i). , Redacted successful enforcement of the Covered Action. Further, the record shows that Claimants 1 and 2 provided the same original information that led to the success of the Related Action. In determining the amount of award to recommend for Claimants 1 and 2, the Commission considered the following factors set forth in Rule 21F-6 of the Exchange Act as they apply to the facts and circumstances of the Claimants’ applications: (1) the significance of information provided to the Commission; (2) the assistance provided in the Covered Action; (3) the law enforcement interest in deterring violations by granting awards; (4) participation in internal compliance systems; (5) culpability; (6) unreasonable reporting delay; and (7)interference with internal compliance and reporting systems. 3 In allocating a *** percent ( %) award to Claimant 1 and a ***Redacted percent ( *** %) Redacted award to Claimant 2, the Commission considered, among other things, that: (i) Claimant 1’s RedactedRedacted information alerted Commission staff to potential in the Company’s prompting the opening of the investigation; (ii) while Claimant 1’s information prompted the opening of the investigation, he/she had limited knowledge of the schemes and his/her information was general and/or incorrect in several respects; (iii) while Claimant 1 and his/her attorney met with Division of Enforcement staff responsible for the Covered Action (“Enforcement staff”), he/she was not able to provide additional helpful information beyond Redacted what was provided in his/her initial tip; (iv) Claimant 1 unreasonably delayed reporting the conduct to the Commission, because after raising concerns to his/her supervisor, he/she did not report the conduct to the Commission for another two years; (v) while Claimant 2 reported to the Commission after Claimant 1, Claimant 2’s information played a more significant Redacted role in the investigation, as Claimant 2’s information expanded the investigation to include , provided important information about key witnesses and their roles in the schemes, and allowed the staff to save time and resources; (vi) Claimant 2 met with Enforcement staff on numerous occasions and staff relied heavily on Claimant 2’s information and assistance during the course of the investigation; (vii) Claimant 2 internally reported the conduct prompting an internal investigation by the Company; and (viii) there are high law enforcement interests here as the information would have been difficult to obtain as it related to conduct occurring abroad. Redacted*** %) award to Claimant 1 and a *** percent ( *** The Commission finds that a percent ( %) award to Claimant 2 appropriately recognizes the contributions each claimant made to the Covered Action and Related Action. 4 Rule 21F-6; 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-6. 4 Among other relief, the Commission ordered the Company to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest, certain of which was offset by disgorgement amounts paid to for the same underlying conduct. The collected the amounts, and as such, for purposes of making the whistleblower award in the Covered Action, we are basing it on the entire amount ordered by the Commission. Pursuant to the Company agreed to pay a , which was partially offset by fines the Company paid to Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted 2 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Claimant 1 shall receive an award of Redacted *** percent ( *** %) and Claimant 2 shall receive an award of *** percent ( %) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action and in the Related Action. By the Commission. Vanessa A. Countryman Secretary Redacted Redacted in related proceedings. Based on amounts collected by the Other Agency, as well as is the amount upon which Claimants’ awards in the Related Action are based. Redacted 3
OCR text (5,919c · tika · 95% conf)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 100818 / August 26, 2024 WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING File No. 2024-38 In the Matter of the Claims for Award in connection with Redacted Redacted Notice of Covered Action Redacted ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIMS The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued Preliminary Determinations recommending that (“Claimant 1”) receive a whistleblower award of over $4 million, equal to percent ( %), and that (“Claimant 2”)1 receive a whistleblower award of over $20 million, equal to percent ( %), of the monetary Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted *** *** sanctions collected in the above-referenced Covered Action (“Covered Action”) and in connection with a between (“the Company”) and the (“Other Agency”), (“Related Action”).2 Claimants 1 and 2 provided written notices of their decisions not to contest the Preliminary Determinations. Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted The recommendations of the CRS are adopted. The record demonstrates that Claimant 1 and Claimant 2 voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the 1 While Claimant 2 falls within the officer exclusion under Rule 21F-4(b)(4)(iii)(A), Claimant 2 satisfies the 120-day exception under Rule 21F-4(b)(4)(v) because he/she reported the conduct internally to the among others, and then waited more than 120 days to report to the Commission. 2 The Commission may pay an award based on amounts collected in related actions that are based on the same original information that the whistleblower voluntarily provided to the Commission and that led the Commission to obtain monetary sanctions totaling more than $1 million. Redacted Exchange Act Rule 21F-3(b), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-3(b). The Commission finds that between the Company and Other Agency constitutes a “related action” within the meaning of Exchange Act Rules 21F-3(b) and 21F-4(d)(3)(i). , Redacted successful enforcement of the Covered Action. Further, the record shows that Claimants 1 and 2 provided the same original information that led to the success of the Related Action. In determining the amount of award to recommend for Claimants 1 and 2, the Commission considered the following factors set forth in Rule 21F-6 of the Exchange Act as they apply to the facts and circumstances of the Claimants’ applications: (1) the significance of information provided to the Commission; (2) the assistance provided in the Covered Action; (3) the law enforcement interest in deterring violations by granting awards; (4) participation in internal compliance systems; (5) culpability; (6) unreasonable reporting delay; and (7) interference with internal compliance and reporting systems.3 In allocating a *** percent ( %) award to Claimant 1 and a *** Redacted percent ( *** %) Redacted award to Claimant 2, the Commission considered, among other things, that: (i) Claimant 1’s RedactedRedactedinformation alerted Commission staff to potential in the Company’s prompting the opening of the investigation; (ii) while Claimant 1’s information prompted the opening of the investigation, he/she had limited knowledge of the schemes and his/her information was general and/or incorrect in several respects; (iii) while Claimant 1 and his/her attorney met with Division of Enforcement staff responsible for the Covered Action (“Enforcement staff”), he/she was not able to provide additional helpful information beyond Redacted what was provided in his/her initial tip; (iv) Claimant 1 unreasonably delayed reporting the conduct to the Commission, because after raising concerns to his/her supervisor, he/she did not report the conduct to the Commission for another two years; (v) while Claimant 2 reported to the Commission after Claimant 1, Claimant 2’s information played a more significant Redacted role in the investigation, as Claimant 2’s information expanded the investigation to include , provided important information about key witnesses and their roles in the schemes, and allowed the staff to save time and resources; (vi) Claimant 2 met with Enforcement staff on numerous occasions and staff relied heavily on Claimant 2’s information and assistance during the course of the investigation; (vii) Claimant 2 internally reported the conduct prompting an internal investigation by the Company; and (viii) there are high law enforcement interests here as the information would have been difficult to obtain as it related to conduct occurring abroad. Redacted*** %) award to Claimant 1 and a *** percent ( *** The Commission finds that a percent ( %) award to Claimant 2 appropriately recognizes the contributions each claimant made to the Covered Action and Related Action.4 Rule 21F-6; 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-6. 4 Among other relief, the Commission ordered the Company to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest, certain of which was offset by disgorgement amounts paid to for the same underlying conduct. The collected the amounts, and as such, for purposes of making the whistleblower award in the Covered Action, we are basing it on the entire amount ordered by the Commission. Pursuant to the Company agreed to pay a , which was partially offset by fines the Company paid to Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted 2 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Claimant 1 shall receive an award of Redacted *** percent ( ***%) and Claimant 2 shall receive an award of ***percent ( %) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action and in the Related Action. By the Commission. Vanessa A. Countryman Secretary Redacted Redacted in related proceedings. Based on amounts collected by the Other Agency, as well as is the amount upon which Claimants’ awards in the Related Action are based. Redacted 3