In the Matter of the Claims for an Award

Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
 
 
   
     
  
    
 
 
     
      
 
   
   
 
 
                
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
     
 
 
     
            
 
   
 
 
  
 
  
 
    
 
  
    
  
 
    
    
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
before the 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
Release No. 100605 / July 26, 2024 
WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING 
File No. 
2024-31 
In the Matter of the Claims for an Award 
in connection with 
Notice of Covered Action 
ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIMS 
The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) made a Preliminary Determination recommending 
Redacted
***
percent ( 
***
that: (i) ("Claimant 10") receive a whistleblower award of more than 
$37,000,000 which represents %) of the monetary sanctions collected in the 
Redacted
above-referenced Covered Action (the 
Redacted
"Covered Action"); and (ii) the award claims of
Redacted
 ("  Claimant 4"), ("Claimant 5"), and 
("Claimant 9") be denied.  Claimant 10 provided written notice of Claimant 10’s decision not 
to contest the Preliminary Determination.  Claimants 4, 5 and 9 filed timely responses 
contesting their Preliminary Determinations. 
1
  For the reasons discussed below, the CRS’s 
recommendations are adopted.     
I.BACKGROUND
A.The Covered Action
The underlying investigation that led to the Covered Action, arose out of the failure of 
employees of (the "Firm"), 
imposed on 
RedactedRedacted
RedactedRedacted
1 
The CRS also recommended the denial of the award applications of eight other claimants who did not contest the 
Preliminary Determinations. Accordingly, the Preliminary Determinations with respect to those eight award claims 
became Final Orders of the Commission through operation of Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(f), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-
10(f). 
1 

 
   
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
    
 
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
 
       
 
        
under the federal securities laws.  This conduct was discovered during the course of, and found 
to have impacted, the underlying investigation and at least other separate staff investigations, 
in which the investigative staffs identified similar misconduct at the Firm. On 
, the Commission instituted 
, against the 
Firm.  , the Commission found that the Firm 
.  Specifically, the Commission found that, from at least 
, Firm employees, 
.  During this 
time, while the Firm 
.  As a result of this conduct, the Firm 
.  Among other relief, the Firm was ordered to pay 
.  The amount of the monetary sanctions in the Covered 
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
RedactedRedacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
***
***
***
Action has been fully collected. 
B.The Preliminary Determinations
The CRS made a Preliminary Determination recommending that Claimant 10 receive a 
***
percent ( 
***
whistleblower award equal to %) of the monetary sanctions collected in the 
Covered Action.
2 
The CRS preliminarily determined that the information provided by Claimant 
10's tip to the Commission and other information provided directly to the Commission, including 
sworn testimony, were the foundations for the subsequent steps in the Commission’s 
investigation. The CRS also recognized in its award recommendation that Claimant 10 first 
reported his/her information internally to the company and was retaliated against for 
whistleblowing.   
The CRS also preliminarily determined to recommend that the award claims of Claimants 
4, 5 and 9 be denied because none of these Claimants provided information that led to the 
successful enforcement of the Covered Action within the meaning of Section 21F(b)(l) of the 
2 
Further, the CRS preliminarily determined to recommend that the related action award claim of Claimant 10 be 
denied because the purported related action did not qualify as a related action under the Commission’s 
whistleblower rules.  Since Claimant 10 did not contest the Preliminary Determination, the denial of Claimant 10's 
related action award claim became the Final Order of the Commission through operation of law pursuant to 
Exchange Act Rule 21F-11(f), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-11(f). 
2 

 
 
   
  
    
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
   
 
 
     
  
   
  
 
 
   
   
  
   
 
 
 
  
  
  
    
 
  
   
 
   
   
  
  
  
 
 
Exchange Act and Rules 21F-3(a)(3) and 21F-4(c) thereunder.  Claimants 4, 5, and 9 all 
submitted timely written responses contesting the Preliminary Determinations.
3
II.ANALYSIS
A.Claimant 10 Analysis
Claimant 10 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 
Exchange Act and Rule 21F-3(a) promulgated thereunder.  Claimant 10 directly provided 
Commission staff with significant information and sworn testimony about the conduct of 
Claimant 10's colleagues and the integrity of the Firm's internal investigation which aided 
the investigation and significantly contributed to the outcome of the Covered Action. 
We agree that Claimant 10 should receive an award of 
***
percent ( 
***
%) of the 
monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action.  In determining the amount of award, 
we considered the following factors set forth in Rule 21F-6 of the Exchange Act as they 
apply to the facts and circumstances of Claimant 10's application: (i) the significance of 
information provided to the Commission; (ii) the assistance provided in the Covered Action; 
(iii)the law enforcement interest in deterring violations by granting awards; (iv)
participation in internal compliance systems; (v) culpability; (vi) unreasonable reporting
delay; and (vii) interference with internal compliance and reporting systems.
In evaluating the amount of the award, we considered that Claimant 10's information 
was, according to a sworn staff declaration which we credit,
4
 "the impetus" for the Firm to 
report the misconduct to the Commission staff and, in addition, the information Claimant 10 
provided directly to the Commission staff was "very helpful" during the investigation that 
led to the success of the Covered Action.  Claimant 10's persistence in internally reporting 
the improper conduct occurring at the Firm, despite the Firm’s initial failure to act on 
Claimant 10's report, led to the Firm’s ultimate investigation and exposure of this 
misconduct, and its self-report to the Commission, which then caused the Commission to 
open its investigation.  Further, without Claimant 10's ongoing, extensive and timely 
assistance during the course of the investigation, including answering the staff's questions 
and providing sworn testimony which the staff found to be "candid and credible," the staff 
would not have learned the full context and dimension of the Firm's misconduct.  Claimant 
10's information allowed the staff to save considerable time in its investigation of the Firm's 
violations, thus conserving Commission resources.  Finally, we find credible Claimant 10's 
assertions that he/she was retaliated against by his/her supervisors and other senior 
employees for his/her whistleblowing, including receiving a negative performance review 
3 
Claimant 10 informed the Office of the Whistleblower ("OWB") that he/she would not be contesting the 
Preliminary Determination. 
4 
The whistleblower rules contemplate that the record upon which an award determination is made shall consist of, 
as relevant here, sworn declaration(s) provided by the relevant Commission staff, in addition to the publicly 
available materials related to the Covered Action, the claimant’s tip, the claimant’s award application, and any other 
materials timely submitted by the claimant in response to the Preliminary Determination. See Exchange Act Rule 
21F-12(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-12(a). 
3 

 
 
   
 
 
    
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
   
   
     
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
   
  
       
       
    
 
      
 
    
  
    
   
  
  
 
 
 
     
   
       
   
and a sharply lower bonus than the previous year, despite meeting the performance goals the 
Firm had set for Claimant 10.   
B.Claimants 4, 5 and 9 Responses and Analysis
In their requests for reconsideration, Claimants 4, 5 and 9 assert that they provided the 
Commission with important information of wrongdoing and that, therefore, they should receive 
whistleblower awards.  However, we find no merit to their contentions and, accordingly, 
conclude that their information did not lead to the success of the Covered Action.    
None of the information provided by Claimants 4, 5 or 9 caused the opening of the 
underlying investigations or caused staff to inquire into different conduct.  Neither did any of 
their information significantly contribute to the success of the Covered Action.  Moreover, none 
of the contentions raised by Claimants 4, 5 or 9 refute the fact that the staffs that investigated and 
brought the Covered Action did not receive any information from, or have any communications 
with, them during their investigations.  Nor was any of their information reviewed by the staffs, 
or helpful to the resolution of, the Covered Action.  Moreover, the allegations and arguments 
raised by Claimants 4 and 5 in their reconsideration requests are vague and do not relate to the 
issues that were the subject of the Covered Action.
5
Claimant 9 notes that he/she provided information to the Commission that caused a 
staff attorney to reach out to him/her to follow-up on Claimant 9's tip.  Claimant 9 surmises 
that the staff attorney's interest "could well have caused SEC investigators to request records 
that had not been previously produced, or to look for discrepancies in records that had been 
previously produced."  The record, however, shows that the staff attorney did not forward 
 issues involved in the Covered Action.  Instead, according to a 
's team closed its review of 
Claimant 9's TCR with an NFA disposition.
7
  The declaration further noted that when the 
staff attorney's team closed its review of Claimant 9's allegations, it stopped reviewing 
his/her allegations and that the staff attorney's team did not share Claimant 9's allegations 
with the investigations that led to the Covered Action. 
III.CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: (i) Claimant 10 shall receive an award of 
A
s noted, the 
Covered Action concerned 
Claimant 5 alleges in his/her award claim and reconsideration request that the Firm was engaged in on-going 
Redacted
, and various entities concerning certain limited partnerships of which Claimant 
Redacted
5 has an investment interest designed to provide the perpetrators with 
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
schemes with the 
. 
Neither Claimant 4 nor Claimant 5's information addressed such violations. 
6 
See supra note 4. 
7 
An "NFA" or "No Further Action" disposition indicates that the staff does not recommend taking any additional 
steps with respect to a TCR unless subsequent information leads staff to reopen or reexamine that TCR. 
Claimant 9's allegations to anyone at the Commission investigating or examining the 
sworn staff declaration which we credit, 
6 
the staff attorney
Redacted
5 
Claimant 4 vaguely alleges in his/her award claim and reconsideration request that the information he/she provided 
the Commission concerned his/her wrongful termination by his/her employer, , due to 
his/her whistleblowing, as well as his/her employer's and the Firm's retaliation and harassment against Claimant 4.  
Redacted
4 

 
 
   
   
 
 
     
 
          
                                                                                                
   
 
***
percent ( 
***
%) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action; (ii) the award 
claims of Claimants 4, 5 and 9 be denied.   
By the Commission. 
Vanessa A. Countryman 
Secretary 
5 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 100605 / July 26, 2024

WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD PROCEEDING
File No. 2024-31

In the Matter of the Claims for an Award
in connection with
Redacted
Redacted
Notice of Covered Action Redacted

ORDER DETERMINING WHISTLEBLOWER AWARD CLAIMS

The Claims Review Staff (“CRS”) made a Preliminary Determination recommending that: (i) Redacted ("Claimant 10") receive a whistleblower award of more than $37,000,000 which represents *** percent (*** %) of the monetary sanctions collected in the above-referenced Covered Action (the "Covered Action"); and (ii) the award claims of Redacted ("Claimant 4"), Redacted ("Claimant 5"), and Redacted ("Claimant 9") be denied. Claimant 10 provided written notice of Claimant 10’s decision not to contest the Preliminary Determination. Claimants 4, 5 and 9 filed timely responses contesting their Preliminary Determinations. 1 For the reasons discussed below, the CRS’s recommendations are adopted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Covered Action

The underlying investigation that led to the Covered Action, arose out of the failure of employees of Redacted (the "Firm"), Redacted imposed on Redacted under the federal securities laws. This conduct was discovered during the course of, and found to have impacted, the underlying investigation and at least other separate staff investigations, in which the investigative staffs identified similar misconduct at the Firm. On , the Commission instituted , against the Firm. , the Commission found that the Firm . Specifically, the Commission found that, from at least , Firm employees, . During this time, while the Firm . As a result of this conduct, the Firm . Among other relief, the Firm was ordered to pay . The amount of the monetary sanctions in the Covered Action has been fully collected.

1 The CRS also recommended the denial of the award applications of eight other claimants who did not contest the Preliminary Determinations. Accordingly, the Preliminary Determinations with respect to those eight award claims became Final Orders of the Commission through operation of Exchange Act Rule 21F-10(f), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(f).

B. The Preliminary Determinations

The CRS made a Preliminary Determination recommending that Claimant 10 receive a whistleblower award equal to percent (***%) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action.2 The CRS preliminarily determined that the information provided by Claimant 10's tip to the Commission and other information provided directly to the Commission, including sworn testimony, were the foundations for the subsequent steps in the Commission's investigation. The CRS also recognized in its award recommendation that Claimant 10 first reported his/her information internally to the company and was retaliated against for whistleblowing.

The CRS also preliminarily determined to recommend that the award claims of Claimants 4, 5 and 9 be denied because none of these Claimants provided information that led to the successful enforcement of the Covered Action within the meaning of Section 21F(b)(l) of the Exchange Act and Rules 21F-3(a)(3) and 21F-4(c) thereunder. Claimants 4, 5, and 9 all submitted timely written responses contesting the Preliminary Determinations.3

2 Further, the CRS preliminarily determined to recommend that the related action award claim of Claimant 10 be denied because the purported related action did not qualify as a related action under the Commission's whistleblower rules. Since Claimant 10 did not contest the Preliminary Determination, the denial of Claimant 10's related action award claim became the Final Order of the Commission through operation of law pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 21F-11(f), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-11(f).

3 Claimant 10 informed the Office of the Whistleblower ("OWB") that he/she would not be contesting the Preliminary Determination.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Claimant 10 Analysis

Claimant 10 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 Exchange Act and Rule 21F-3(a) promulgated thereunder. Claimant 10 directly provided Commission staff with significant information and sworn testimony about the conduct of Claimant 10's colleagues and the integrity of the Firm's internal investigation which aided the investigation and significantly contributed to the outcome of the Covered Action.

We agree that Claimant 10 should receive an award of *** percent (***%) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action. In determining the amount of award, we considered the following factors set forth in Rule 21F-6 of the Exchange Act as they apply to the facts and circumstances of Claimant 10's application: (i) the significance of information provided to the Commission; (ii) the assistance provided in the Covered Action; (iii) the law enforcement interest in deterring violations by granting awards; (iv) participation in internal compliance systems; (v) culpability; (vi) unreasonable reporting delay; and (vii) interference with internal compliance and reporting systems.

In evaluating the amount of the award, we considered that Claimant 10's information was, according to a sworn staff declaration which we credit,4 "the impetus" for the Firm to report the misconduct to the Commission staff and, in addition, the information Claimant 10 provided directly to the Commission staff was "very helpful" during the investigation that led to the success of the Covered Action. Claimant 10's persistence in internally reporting the improper conduct occurring at the Firm, despite the Firm's initial failure to act on Claimant 10's report, led to the Firm's ultimate investigation and exposure of this misconduct, and its self-report to the Commission, which then caused the Commission to open its investigation. Further, without Claimant 10's ongoing, extensive and timely assistance during the course of the investigation, including answering the staff's questions and providing sworn testimony which the staff found to be "candid and credible," the staff would not have learned the full context and dimension of the Firm's misconduct. Claimant 10's information allowed the staff to save considerable time in its investigation of the Firm's violations, thus conserving Commission resources. Finally, we find credible Claimant 10's assertions that he/she was retaliated against by his/her supervisors and other senior employees for his/her whistleblowing, including receiving a negative performance review and a sharply lower bonus than the previous year, despite meeting the performance goals the Firm had set for Claimant 10.

4 The whistleblower rules contemplate that the record upon which an award determination is made shall consist of, as relevant here, sworn declaration(s) provided by the relevant Commission staff, in addition to the publicly available materials related to the Covered Action, the claimant's tip, the claimant's award application, and any other materials timely submitted by the claimant in response to the Preliminary Determination. See Exchange Act Rule 21F-12(a), 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-12(a).

B. Claimants 4, 5 and 9 Responses and Analysis

In their requests for reconsideration, Claimants 4, 5 and 9 assert that they provided the Commission with important information of wrongdoing and that, therefore, they should receive whistleblower awards. However, we find no merit to their contentions and, accordingly, conclude that their information did not lead to the success of the Covered Action.

None of the information provided by Claimants 4, 5 or 9 caused the opening of the underlying investigations or caused staff to inquire into different conduct. Neither did any of their information significantly contribute to the success of the Covered Action. Moreover, none of the contentions raised by Claimants 4, 5 or 9 refute the fact that the staffs that investigated and brought the Covered Action did not receive any information from, or have any communications with, them during their investigations. Nor was any of their information reviewed by the staffs, or helpful to the resolution of, the Covered Action. Moreover, the allegations and arguments raised by Claimants 4 and 5 in their reconsideration requests are vague and do not relate to the issues that were the subject of the Covered Action.5

Claimant 9 notes that he/she provided information to the Commission that caused a staff attorney to reach out to him/her to follow-up on Claimant 9's tip. Claimant 9 surmises that the staff attorney's interest "could well have caused SEC investigators to request records that had not been previously produced, or to look for discrepancies in records that had been previously produced." The record, however, shows that the staff attorney did not forward Claimant 9's allegations to anyone at the Commission investigating or examining the issues involved in the Covered Action. Instead, according to a sworn staff declaration which we credit,6 the staff attorney's team closed its review of Claimant 9's TCR with an NFA disposition.7 The declaration further noted that when the staff attorney's team closed its review of Claimant 9's allegations, it stopped reviewing his/her allegations and that the staff attorney's team did not share Claimant 9's allegations with the investigations that led to the Covered Action.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: (i) Claimant 10 shall receive an award of

5 Claimant 4 vaguely alleges in his/her award claim and reconsideration request that the information he/she provided the Commission concerned his/her wrongful termination by his/her employer, Redacted, due to his/her whistleblowing, as well as his/her employer's and the Firm's retaliation and harassment against Claimant 4. Claimant 5 alleges in his/her award claim and reconsideration request that the Firm was engaged in on-going schemes with the Redacted, and various entities concerning certain limited partnerships of which Claimant 5 has an investment interest designed to provide the perpetrators with Redacted. As noted, the Covered Action concerned Redacted. Neither Claimant 4 nor Claimant 5's information addressed such violations.

6 See supra note 4.

7 An "NFA" or "No Further Action" disposition indicates that the staff does not recommend taking any additional steps with respect to a TCR unless subsequent information leads staff to reopen or reexamine that TCR.

---

*** percent (***%) of the monetary sanctions collected in the Covered Action; (ii) the award claims of Claimants 4, 5 and 9 be denied.

By the Commission.

Vanessa A. Countryman
Secretary