The SEC Amends Whistleblower Rules in Attempt to Bring Added Efficiency and Transparency to Program
Under the whistleblower program, which was enacted as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a whistleblower is eligible for an award in an amount equal to between 10% and 30% of the fines levied in a covered SEC enforcement action that results from the whistleblower’s tip if the fines total more than $1 million. In determining an award amount, the SEC analyzes certain factors set forth in Exchange Act Rule 21F-6, including positive factors (such as the significance of the information provided by the whistleblower, the level of assistance provided by the whistleblower, and the law-enforcement interest in deterring the specific violation) and negative factors (such as the whistleblower’s culpability for the violation and unreasonable delay in reporting).
The SEC says that the amendments clarify the agency’s discretion in determining award amounts and increasing efficiencies around the review and processing of whistleblower award claims. One attempt to achieve these efficiencies was an amendment to the rules relating to whistleblower awards of $5 million or less. Specifically, for awards where the statutory maximum amount of the covered action and any related actions is $5 million or less, the SEC has added a new rule providing a presumption that a meritorious whistleblower will be paid the statutory maximum amount (30% of total monetary sanctions collected in the enforcement action), provided no negative factors exist. As awards of $5 million or less constitute 75% of the awards given out in the whistleblower program, the SEC claims this amendment will allow it to process whistleblower claims more efficiently and issue awards at a faster pace.
In contrast, for awards over $5 million, the SEC will continue to issue awards based on the application of positive and negative award factors. The amendments affirm the SEC’s discretion in applying the award factors and setting the award amount, including the discretion to apply the award factors in percentage terms, dollar terms or some combination of the two. The SEC decided not to adopt a formalized process for the SEC to conduct an enhanced review of certain awards involving penalties in excess of $100 million, which had been proposed by the SEC in 2018. The SEC stated that the proposed amendment was not necessary because the SEC already had the authority to take into account the award amount in determining award percentage, which would allow it to scrutinize large awards if it desired to do so. Notably, in a footnote in the final order, the SEC stated that “based on the historical application of the award factors, if none of the negative [award factors] are present, the award amount would be expected to be in the top third of the award range,” implicitly confirming that large awards would still be eligible for the top of the 10%-30% award range.
The two Democratic SEC commissioners who dissented from the final rule, Allison Herren Lee and Caroline A. Crenshaw, emphasized their concern with the level of discretion that the final rule gives the agency to take into account the amount of an award in determining award percentage, the underlying concern being that threat of reduction of a large award could create uncertainty and thereby discourage future whistleblowers.
The final rule further states that in order for an individual to obtain whistleblower status that is eligible for an award, and to be accorded confidentiality and retaliation protection, the individual must provide the SEC with information about the possible securities laws violations “in writing”. Commissioner Crenshaw expressed concern over this part of the final rule because by limiting the retaliation protections to whistleblowers who submit information “in writing”, the SEC “fails to do all we can to protect those who cooperate with our exams and investigations,” such as interviews and testimony where the whistleblower provides information to the SEC orally.
Among other changes, the final rule also clarifies that the form of an SEC enforcement action does not affect whether the action may be considered in determining the amount of a whistleblower award. The SEC may award payments to whistleblowers based on money collected as a result of deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements entered into by the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as under settlement agreements entered into by the SEC outside of the context of a judicial or administrative proceeding to address violations of securities laws.
The whistleblower program is viewed as being an important tool in the SEC’s protection of investors. According to the SEC, the agency has issued approximately $523 million in awards to 97 whistleblowers since the program began, and the SEC actions associated with those awards have resulted in financial remedies totaling more than $2.5 billion, most of which has been, or is scheduled to be, returned to harmed investors. Significantly, the pace at which the SEC has been processing whistleblower cases and making awards has been accelerating in recent years. The amendments to the whistleblower rules will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
We invite you to contact us directly if you have any questions regarding the new whistleblower rules or OWB guidance.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.