2020-09-01 SEC Press pdf 139 KB 4,166 chars

In the Matter of the Claim for an Award

summary

Two unaffiliated whistleblowers jointly received over $2.5 million from the SEC for providing original, highly-probative analysis of publicly available information that exposed accounting violations and triggered a successful enforcement action, with each to receive 50% unless otherwise requested.

paragraph

The SEC awarded over $2.5 million jointly to two whistleblowers, Claimant 1 and Claimant 2, for providing original information that led to a covered enforcement action involving accounting violations at a company. The whistleblowers, unaffiliated outsiders, did not report internally but delivered detailed, actionable analysis based on publicly available data, which formed the foundation of the SEC’s investigation and conserved significant staff resources. The award, determined under Rule 21F-6, reflected the significance of their tip, their substantial assistance, and the law enforcement value of deterring fraud, with the amount representing a percentage of monetary sanctions collected and split equally between the two unless they requested otherwise.

narrative

Two unaffiliated whistleblowers, Claimant 1 and Claimant 2, jointly received an award of over $2.5 million from the SEC for providing original, highly-probative analysis based on publicly available information that exposed accounting violations at a company and directly caused the SEC to open its investigation. The whistleblowers submitted their information through a single Form TCR and Form WB-APP via the same counsel, prompting the SEC to treat them as a single whistleblower for award purposes. Their analysis was the underlying source for the Covered Action, and their ongoing assistance focused the investigation and saved substantial Commission resources. The SEC applied Rule 21F-6 factors, positively assessing the significance of the information, the quality of their assistance, and the deterrent effect of the award, while noting no internal reporting or culpability issues. Both claimants accepted the Preliminary Determination without contest, and the award is to be split equally between them unless they jointly request a different allocation. The SEC confirmed the action as a single Covered Action under Rule 21F-4(d)(1), as all administrative actions arose from the same nucleus of operative facts. No details about the company or specific violations were disclosed in the public order, consistent with whistleblower confidentiality protections.

Enriched metadata

Scheme
unclassified
Outcome
charged
Classified unclassified. No EDGAR filing fingerprint (criminal/DOJ-side scheme). detection rule →
Statutes
15 U.S.C. §78u-6(b)17 C.F.R. §240.21F-4(d)17 C.F.R. §240.21F-3(a)17 C.F.R. §240.21F-6Rule 21F-6Rule 21F-3(a)
Parties
claims review staffcovered actionpossible accounting violationsSecurities and Exchange Commissionwhistleblower award recommendation
Keywords
awardcovered actionredactedredacted redactedexchangeclaimantscoveredactioncommissionwhistleblowerclaimantmatter claimclaim awardsecurities exchangewhistleblower award

Extracted insights

Dollar amounts 1
  • $2.50M $2,500,000 $1M–$10M
Entities 5
  • person claims review staff
  • person covered action
  • person possible accounting violations
  • agency Securities and Exchange Commission
  • person whistleblower award recommendation
Triples 9
  • Claimant 1 And Claimant 2 receive whistleblower award Over $2,500,000
  • Claimant 1 And Claimant 2 provided original information SEC
  • Claimant 1 And Claimant 2 revealed Possible Accounting Violations
  • Claimant 1 And Claimant 2 caused opening of Investigation
  • Claims Review Staff issued Preliminary Determination Whistleblower Award Recommendation
  • SEC issued Release No. 89721
  • SEC issued on September 1, 2020
  • Vanessa A. Countryman signed as Secretary
  • Claimant 1 And Claimant 2 provided assistance in Covered Action
Text layers
Extracted body text (4,166c)

 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
before the 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
Release No. 89721 / September 1, 2020 
WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 
File No. 2020-28 
 
 
In the Matter of the Claim for an Award 
 
in connection with 
 
Redacted 
Redacted 
Redacted 
Redacted 
Redacted 
Redacted 
Redacted 
Redacted 
 
Notice of Covered Action 
Redacted 
 
 
 
ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIM 
 
The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued a Preliminary Determination 
recommending that 
Redacted 
(“claimant 1”) and 
Redacted 
(“claimant 2”) jointly
1
 
receive a whistleblower award in the amount of over $2,500,000 ( 
*** 
% of the monetary 
sanctions collected in 
Redacted 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
We have determined to treat claimant 1 and claimant 2 jointly as a “whistleblower” for purposes of the 
award determination given that a Form TCR was submitted on behalf of both of them and they submitted 
their Forms WB-APP together via the same counsel. See Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange 
Act”) Section 21F(a)(6) (defining a “whistleblower” to include two or more individuals acting jointly who 
provide information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission). Our proceeding in 
this way has not impacted the total award percentage to claimants. Unless claimants, within ten (10) 
calendar days of the issuance of this Order, make a joint request, in writing, for a different allocation of the 
award between the two of them, the Office of the Whistleblower is directed to pay each of them 
individually 50% of their joint award. 

Redacted 
 
).
2 
Claimant 1 and claimant 2 
subsequently provided written notice of claimants’ decision not to contest the Preliminary 
Determination. 
 
The recommendation of the CRS is adopted. The record demonstrates that 
claimants voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the 
successful enforcement of the Covered Action.
3 
In particular, claimants, both 
unaffiliated outsiders to the company that was the subject of the Covered Action, 
provided highly-probative independent analysis based upon publicly available 
information that revealed possible accounting violations at the subject company and 
caused the staff to open the investigation that resulted in the Covered Action. 
 
Applying the award criteria in Exchange Act Rule 21F-6 to the specific facts and 
circumstances here, we find that the proposed award amount is appropriate.
4 
In reaching 
that determination, we positively assessed the following facts: (i) that claimants’ tip 
caused the opening of the investigation and was the underlying source that formed the 
basis for the Covered Action; (ii) that the violations charged in the Covered Action 
related to the detailed analysis submitted by claimants, as well as information uncovered 
by claimants based on 
Redacted 
; and (iii) that claimants provided 
substantial, ongoing assistance which focused the investigation and conserved significant 
Commission staff time and resources. 
 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that claimants shall jointly receive an award 
of over $2,500,000 ( 
*** 
% of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Act ion). 
 
By the Commission. 
 
 
Vanessa A. Countryman 
Secretary 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
For the purposes of making an award, we consider the administrative actions in this matter as a single 
Covered Action because they arose out the same nucleus of operative facts. See Exchange Act Rule 21F- 
4(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-4(d)(1). 
 
3 
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). 
 
4 
In assessing the appropriate award amount, Exchange Act Rule 21F-6 provides that the Commission 
consider: (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. 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-6. 
2 
OCR text (4,175c · tika · 95% conf)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

before the 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 89721 / September 1, 2020 
WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2020-28 
 
 

In the Matter of the Claim for an Award 
 

in connection with 
 

Redacted 

Redacted 

Redacted 

Redacted 

Redacted 

Redacted 

Redacted 

Redacted 

 

Notice of Covered Action Redacted 

 
 

 

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIM 
 

The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued a Preliminary Determination 
recommending that Redacted (“claimant 1”) and Redacted (“claimant 2”) jointly1 

receive a whistleblower award in the amount of over $2,500,000 ( *** % of the monetary 
sanctions collected in Redacted 

 
 
 
 
 

 

1 We have determined to treat claimant 1 and claimant 2 jointly as a “whistleblower” for purposes of the 
award determination given that a Form TCR was submitted on behalf of both of them and they submitted 
their Forms WB-APP together via the same counsel. See Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange 
Act”) Section 21F(a)(6) (defining a “whistleblower” to include two or more individuals acting jointly who 
provide information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission). Our proceeding in 
this way has not impacted the total award percentage to claimants. Unless claimants, within ten (10) 
calendar days of the issuance of this Order, make a joint request, in writing, for a different allocation of the 
award between the two of them, the Office of the Whistleblower is directed to pay each of them 
individually 50% of their joint award. 



Redacted  
).2 Claimant 1 and claimant 2 

subsequently provided written notice of claimants’ decision not to contest the Preliminary 
Determination. 

 
The recommendation of the CRS is adopted. The record demonstrates that 

claimants voluntarily provided original information to the Commission that led to the 
successful enforcement of the Covered Action.3 In particular, claimants, both 
unaffiliated outsiders to the company that was the subject of the Covered Action, 
provided highly-probative independent analysis based upon publicly available 
information that revealed possible accounting violations at the subject company and 
caused the staff to open the investigation that resulted in the Covered Action. 

 
Applying the award criteria in Exchange Act Rule 21F-6 to the specific facts and 

circumstances here, we find that the proposed award amount is appropriate.4 In reaching 
that determination, we positively assessed the following facts: (i) that claimants’ tip 
caused the opening of the investigation and was the underlying source that formed the 
basis for the Covered Action; (ii) that the violations charged in the Covered Action 
related to the detailed analysis submitted by claimants, as well as information uncovered 
by claimants based on Redacted ; and (iii) that claimants provided 
substantial, ongoing assistance which focused the investigation and conserved significant 
Commission staff time and resources. 

 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that claimants shall jointly receive an award 

of over $2,500,000 ( *** % of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action). 
 

By the Commission. 
 
 

Vanessa A. Countryman 
Secretary 

 
 
 
 
 

2 For the purposes of making an award, we consider the administrative actions in this matter as a single 
Covered Action because they arose out the same nucleus of operative facts. See Exchange Act Rule 21F- 
4(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-4(d)(1). 

 
3 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). 

 
4 In assessing the appropriate award amount, Exchange Act Rule 21F-6 provides that the Commission 
consider: (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. 17 C.F.R. §240.21F-6. 

2