In the Matter of the Claim for Award

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
before the 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
Release No. 82996 / April 5, 2018 
WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 
File No. 2018-8 
 
In the Matter of the Claim for Award 
 
in connection with 
 
Redacted 
 
Notice of Covered Action 
 
 
ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIM 
 
The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued a Preliminary Determination 
recommending that 
Redacted 
(“Claimant”) receive a whistleblower award in the 
amount of 
Redacted 
percent (
***
 
%) of the monetary sanctions collected, or to be 
collected, in the Covered Action. This proposed award would yield a likely payout to the 
Claimant of more than $2.2 million. Claimant subsequently provided written notice of 
Claimant’s decision not to contest the Preliminary Determination. 
 
The recommendation of the CRS with respect to the Covered Action is adopted. 
We find that the record demonstrates that the Claimant voluntarily provided original 
information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered 
Action pursuant to Section 21F(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 
“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1), and Rule 21F-3(a) thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 
§ 240.21F-3(a). 
 
In reaching this determination, we have relied upon Exchange Act Rule 21F- 
4(b)(7). That rule provides in relevant part that: 
 
If you provide information to ... any other authority of the federal 
government ..., and you, within 120 days, submit the same information to 
the Commission pursuant to §240.21F-9 of this chapter, as you must do in 
order for you to be eligible to be considered for an award, then, for 
purposes of evaluating your claim to an award ..., the Commission will 
consider that you provided [the] information as of the date of your original 
Redacted 

2 
 
disclosure, report or submission to one of these other authorities or 
persons. 
 
Under Rule 21F-4(b)(7), if an individual submits his or her tip to another federal agency, 
then in considering an award application from that individual, the Commission will treat 
the information as though it had been submitted to the Commission directly from the 
individual at the same time that it was submitted to the other agency, provided that the 
individual submitted that same information to the Commission no later than 120 days 
after the individual first went to the other government agency. In this way, Rule 21F- 
4(b)(7) operates as a 120-day safe harbor, assuring an individual who voluntarily reports 
misconduct to another agency first that he or she will be deemed for award purposes to 
have reported directly to the Commission at the same time that the individual reported to 
the other federal agency.
1
 Thus, the other agency’s use of the information in a referral 
that causes the staff to open an investigation is credited directly to the whistleblower for 
purposes of making an award determination, including the “led to” standard under 
Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c). 
 
Applying Rule 21F-4(b)(7) to the facts in this matter, we find that the Claimant is 
deemed to be have been a whistleblower who caused the opening of the investigation by 
providing original information to the Commission. The relevant facts here are clear: The 
Claimant voluntarily reported information to a federal agency covered by the rule, that 
federal agency in turn made a referral to the Commission based on the Claimant’s 
information, the Enforcement staff then promptly responded to the referral by opening 
the investigation that resulted in the Covered Action, and the Claimant within 120 days of 
reporting to the other agency (albeit after the Commission’s investigation was opened) 
provided the same information to the Commission in accordance with the procedures 
specified in Exchange Act Rule 21F-9.  Based on the foregoing, we find that the 
Claimant satisfies the Rule 21F-4(b)(7) safe-harbor provision and, thus, in making an 
award to the Claimant for the Covered Action we have treated the Claimant’s submission 
to the Commission as though it had been made on the date that the Claimant provided 
that same information to the other federal agency. 
 
Turning to the award amount, we have applied the award criteria identified in 
Rule 21F-6 of the Exchange Act to the specific facts and circumstances here.
2
 In doing 
 
 
1 
The 120-day safe harbor balances the important programmatic goal of encouraging 
individuals to report potential securities law violations to the Commission promptly with the 
practical recognition that an individual may in certain circumstances report wrongdoing to other 
federal agencies (or proceed through other channels recognized in the rule) before coming to the 
Commission. Moreover, by requiring that individuals submit the information to the Commission 
within 120 days pursuant to the requirements of Rule 21F-9, the safe harbor ensures that the 
Commission will have a reasonably contemporaneous record that the individual was the source of 
the information, which in turn helps to promote administrative accuracy in connection with the 
processing of any eventual whistleblower award application. 
 
2 
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 

3 
 
Redacted 
so, we find that the CRS’s proposed award determination is appropriate. We positively 
assessed the facts that the Claimant was a former company insider whose information 
caused the Commission to open the investigation into the misconduct and thereafter 
continued to provide ongoing helpful assistance to the staff during the Commission’s 
investigation. 
 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Claimant shall receive an award of 
percent (
***
%) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action, 
including any monetary sanctions collected after the date of this Order.
3
 
 
By the Commission. 
 
Brent J. Fields 
Secretary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
assistance provided in the Commission action; (3) 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 
The CRS recommended an award denial for the Claimant’s claim for an award in 
connection with 
Redacted
 
. See generally Exchange Act Rule 21F-11 
(“Procedures for determining awards based upon a related action.”). Claimant did not challenge 
that preliminary determination. As a result, the CRS’s preliminary determination as to the 
related-action award claim became the final determination of the Commission pursuant to 
Rule 21F-11(f). 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 82996 / April 5, 2018 
WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 

File No. 2018-8 
 

In the Matter of the Claim for Award 
 

in connection with 
 

Redacted 

 
Notice of Covered Action 

 
 

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIM 
 

The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) issued a Preliminary Determination 
recommending that Redacted (“Claimant”) receive a whistleblower award in the 
amount of Redacted percent (***

 %) of the monetary sanctions collected, or to be 
collected, in the Covered Action. This proposed award would yield a likely payout to the 
Claimant of more than $2.2 million. Claimant subsequently provided written notice of 
Claimant’s decision not to contest the Preliminary Determination. 

 
The recommendation of the CRS with respect to the Covered Action is adopted. 

We find that the record demonstrates that the Claimant voluntarily provided original 
information to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered 
Action pursuant to Section 21F(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 
“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1), and Rule 21F-3(a) thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 
§ 240.21F-3(a). 

 
In reaching this determination, we have relied upon Exchange Act Rule 21F- 

4(b)(7). That rule provides in relevant part that: 
 

If you provide information to … any other authority of the federal 
government …, and you, within 120 days, submit the same information to 
the Commission pursuant to §240.21F-9 of this chapter, as you must do in 
order for you to be eligible to be considered for an award, then, for 
purposes of evaluating your claim to an award …, the Commission will 
consider that you provided [the] information as of the date of your original 

Redacted 



2  

disclosure, report or submission to one of these other authorities or 
persons. 

 
Under Rule 21F-4(b)(7), if an individual submits his or her tip to another federal agency, 
then in considering an award application from that individual, the Commission will treat 
the information as though it had been submitted to the Commission directly from the 
individual at the same time that it was submitted to the other agency, provided that the 
individual submitted that same information to the Commission no later than 120 days 
after the individual first went to the other government agency. In this way, Rule 21F- 
4(b)(7) operates as a 120-day safe harbor, assuring an individual who voluntarily reports 
misconduct to another agency first that he or she will be deemed for award purposes to 
have reported directly to the Commission at the same time that the individual reported to 
the other federal agency.1 Thus, the other agency’s use of the information in a referral 
that causes the staff to open an investigation is credited directly to the whistleblower for 
purposes of making an award determination, including the “led to” standard under 
Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(c). 

 
Applying Rule 21F-4(b)(7) to the facts in this matter, we find that the Claimant is 

deemed to be have been a whistleblower who caused the opening of the investigation by 
providing original information to the Commission. The relevant facts here are clear: The 
Claimant voluntarily reported information to a federal agency covered by the rule, that 
federal agency in turn made a referral to the Commission based on the Claimant’s 
information, the Enforcement staff then promptly responded to the referral by opening 
the investigation that resulted in the Covered Action, and the Claimant within 120 days of 
reporting to the other agency (albeit after the Commission’s investigation was opened) 
provided the same information to the Commission in accordance with the procedures 
specified in Exchange Act Rule 21F-9.  Based on the foregoing, we find that the 
Claimant satisfies the Rule 21F-4(b)(7) safe-harbor provision and, thus, in making an 
award to the Claimant for the Covered Action we have treated the Claimant’s submission 
to the Commission as though it had been made on the date that the Claimant provided 
that same information to the other federal agency. 

 
Turning to the award amount, we have applied the award criteria identified in 

Rule 21F-6 of the Exchange Act to the specific facts and circumstances here.2 In doing 
 
 

1 The 120-day safe harbor balances the important programmatic goal of encouraging 
individuals to report potential securities law violations to the Commission promptly with the 
practical recognition that an individual may in certain circumstances report wrongdoing to other 
federal agencies (or proceed through other channels recognized in the rule) before coming to the 
Commission. Moreover, by requiring that individuals submit the information to the Commission 
within 120 days pursuant to the requirements of Rule 21F-9, the safe harbor ensures that the 
Commission will have a reasonably contemporaneous record that the individual was the source of 
the information, which in turn helps to promote administrative accuracy in connection with the 
processing of any eventual whistleblower award application. 

 
2 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 



3  

Redacted 

so, we find that the CRS’s proposed award determination is appropriate. We positively 
assessed the facts that the Claimant was a former company insider whose information 
caused the Commission to open the investigation into the misconduct and thereafter 
continued to provide ongoing helpful assistance to the staff during the Commission’s 
investigation. 

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

percent (***%) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action, 
including any monetary sanctions collected after the date of this Order.3 

 

By the Commission.  
Brent J. Fields 
Secretary 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

assistance provided in the Commission action; (3) 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 The CRS recommended an award denial for the Claimant’s claim for an award in 
connection with Redacted

 

. See generally Exchange Act Rule 21F-11 
(“Procedures for determining awards based upon a related action.”). Claimant did not challenge 
that preliminary determination. As a result, the CRS’s preliminary determination as to the 
related-action award claim became the final determination of the Commission pursuant to 
Rule 21F-11(f).