SEC whistleblower bounty program
I. Overview of the SEC Whistleblower Bounty Program
What is it?
The SEC Whistleblower Program was established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010), specifically in Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Purpose:
Encourage whistleblowers to report securities law violations.
Reward whistleblowers with a percentage of monetary sanctions collected.
Enhance SEC enforcement efforts.
Key Features:
Whistleblowers can receive 10% to 30% of monetary sanctions collected in successful SEC enforcement actions.
Whistleblower complaints can be submitted anonymously (via counsel).
Protection against retaliation for whistleblowers employed by companies under investigation.
The SEC reviews tips confidentially and initiates investigations.
II. Requirements for Whistleblower Eligibility
Tip must be original information.
Information must lead to successful enforcement with monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million.
Whistleblower must voluntarily provide information to the SEC.
Must be a natural person.
III. Important Legal Issues in the Program
Definition of “whistleblower.”
Eligibility for awards.
Scope of retaliation protection.
Procedural due process for award disputes.
Confidentiality vs. need for disclosure.
IV. Key Cases Explaining the SEC Whistleblower Program
🔹 1. Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018)
Facts:
Somers was fired after reporting alleged securities violations internally but had not reported to the SEC before termination.
Somers claimed protection under Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provisions.
Legal Question:
Does the anti-retaliation protection apply to employees who have only reported internally and not to the SEC?
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled no.
To be protected under Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provisions, an employee must have reported the alleged violation to the SEC.
Internal reporting alone does not qualify.
Significance:
Narrowed protection for whistleblowers.
Emphasized that Dodd-Frank’s protections hinge on SEC reporting.
🔹 2. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Kipp, 2020 SEC LEXIS 1955 (2020)
Facts:
The SEC denied whistleblower award to Kipp, claiming his information was not “original.”
Kipp submitted information already known to the SEC.
Issue:
What constitutes “original information” under the program?
Holding:
The SEC interpreted “original” to mean information not already known to the SEC.
Information duplicative of existing knowledge does not qualify for bounty.
Significance:
Reinforces importance of originality of the tip.
Ensures awards are only given for tips that truly add value to enforcement.
🔹 3. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Litvak, 2021 WL 3417569 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)
Facts:
Whistleblower submitted anonymous tip regarding bond trader Litvak’s alleged securities fraud.
Litvak challenged the award process and sought discovery about the whistleblower’s credibility.
Holding:
Court emphasized the SEC’s broad discretion in award determinations.
Whistleblower confidentiality is paramount.
Limited discovery allowed to protect whistleblower anonymity.
Significance:
Demonstrates judicial deference to the SEC in managing whistleblower awards.
Highlights confidentiality protections.
🔹 4. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Fife, 2021 WL 5962124 (N.D. Tex. 2021)
Facts:
Whistleblower sued for alleged retaliation after reporting to the SEC.
The defendant company argued that the whistleblower failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Holding:
Court clarified that whistleblowers must file retaliation complaints within the statutory timeframes.
Affirmed the procedural safeguards to balance enforcement and employer protections.
Significance:
Clarifies procedural requirements for whistleblower retaliation claims.
Highlights interplay between administrative exhaustion and judicial review.
🔹 5. CFTC v. McDonnell, 287 F. Supp. 3d 213 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)
Facts:
Although a CFTC case, it’s instructive for whistleblower programs.
McDonnell’s case involved challenges over whistleblower award eligibility and causation.
Holding:
Court recognized the broad scope of whistleblower protections under related statutes.
Emphasized the importance of timely and detailed reporting to regulatory agencies.
Significance:
Illustrates how courts interpret whistleblower protections beyond the SEC context.
Cross-agency insights on whistleblower procedural protections.
🔹 6. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 752 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 2014)
Facts:
Whistleblower reported alleged internal misconduct related to mortgage-backed securities.
Holding:
Court discussed SEC’s authority to reward whistleblowers who voluntarily provide information leading to enforcement.
Emphasized the program’s role in encouraging insider reporting.
Significance:
Reinforced the policy behind the whistleblower bounty program.
Confirmed broad discretion to SEC in enforcing whistleblower rules.
V. Summary of Key Points
| Topic | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Whistleblower Protection | Must report to SEC for anti-retaliation protection (Somers). |
| Original Information | Must provide new info not already known (Kipp). |
| Confidentiality | Protected unless disclosure is necessary (Litvak). |
| Procedural Requirements | Timely claims, exhaustion of remedies required (Fife). |
| Judicial Deference | Courts generally defer to SEC decisions on awards (Citigroup, Litvak). |
| Cross-Agency Influence | Other agencies (CFTC) follow similar principles in whistleblower protections (McDonnell). |
VI. Conclusion
The SEC Whistleblower Bounty Program is a critical enforcement tool that incentivizes insider reporting of securities violations. Court decisions have:
Clarified who qualifies as a whistleblower,
Emphasized the importance of original, timely reports to the SEC,
Highlighted the confidentiality and procedural safeguards protecting whistleblowers,
And established judicial deference to the SEC’s discretion in awarding bounties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments