ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Our Attorneys

SEC Whistleblower Lawyer Blog

Our Attorneys Include a Former SEC Prosecutor and Wall Street Defense Counsel

by

The SEC announced another whistleblower bounty that paid nearly $3.5 million to four individuals. Jointly, three whistleblowers provided information to the SEC that led to the staff opening an investigation. The investigation led to a successful enforcement action by the SEC. Additionally, that information and investigation led to another agency opening its own investigation, culminating in a separate enforcement action. The fourth whistleblower used publicly available information to offer additional insights to the SEC. This information and analysis showed additional allegations to the staff that furthered the investigation. However, this whistleblower was “an outsider not affiliated with the Company.”  The individual’s analysis from public information was highly detailed and took considerable time and effort to research and collate, such as changes in the company’s stock pricing. The report submitted to the SEC took approximately seven weeks to complete.The SEC announced another whistleblower bounty that paid nearly $3.5 million to four individuals.

Jointly, three whistleblowers provided information to the SEC that led to the staff opening an investigation. The investigation led to a successful enforcement action by the SEC. Additionally, that information and investigation led to another agency opening its own investigation, culminating in a separate enforcement action. Continue reading

by

The SEC has announced its latest whistleblower bounty of $6 million to five individuals in two groups for one single covered action. The first group, known as “Claimant 1” in the order, provided crucial documents to the SEC that led to requests for additional documentation. These documents were the crux of the SEC’s case. The individuals continued to provide documentation and information to help SEC staff to understand the company’s business practices. The second group was called “Claimant 2” in the order. These individuals provided firsthand accounts of the ongoing wrongdoing to the SEC, since they were familiar with the business processes and systems of the defendant in question. “Claimant 2” also sat for interviews, offered continued assistance, and gave on-the-record testimonies in the case. All five individuals also provided ongoing assistance to the SEC throughout the investigation.The SEC has announced its latest whistleblower bounty of $6 million to five individuals in two groups for one single covered action.

The first group, known as “Claimant 1” in the order, provided crucial documents to the SEC that led to requests for additional documentation. These documents were the crux of the SEC’s case. The individuals continued to provide documentation and information to help SEC staff to understand the company’s business practices. Continue reading

by

The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently awarded a bounty of $10 million to a whistleblower who offered original information voluntarily. The information led to the opening of an investigation and a subsequent successful enforcement action. According to the order, the individual provided the information properly via a Form TCR that involved information previously unknown to the CFTC, and in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA.) The whistleblower was under no obligation to provide this information, and provided it at the outset of the investigation, when the CFTC was unaware of the ongoing conduct.The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently awarded a bounty of $10 million to a whistleblower who offered original information voluntarily. The information led to the opening of an investigation and a subsequent successful enforcement action.

According to the order, the individual provided the information properly via a Form TCR that involved information previously unknown to the CFTC, and in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA.) The whistleblower was under no obligation to provide this information, and provided it at the outset of the investigation, when the CFTC was unaware of the ongoing conduct. Continue reading

by

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has awarded a $625,000 bounty to four whistleblowers who provided information and assistance in an investigation. A total of nine claimants submitted award applications for this enforcement action. Of that number, only four received awards. Claimants 2, 3, 4, and 6 received bounties from the civil monetary penalties levied against the two defendants involved in the enforcement action. Claimant 4 offered the highest level of assistance and cooperation and received the largest portion of the bounty. All four offered substantial assistance that included providing names and other information which supported the Commission's action against the defendants. The Claims Review Staff (CRS) decided to deny award applications of claimants 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9. These claimants failed to meet the program’s requirements. Specifically, CRS found that Claimant 1’s wasn't voluntary, because it was provided after they received multiple requests including a subpoena from CFTC staff. After receiving the preliminary determination, Claimant 1 requested the records supporting that determination. CFTC Whistleblower staff provided the material shortly thereafter. Claimant 1 then submitted a letter contesting the preliminary determination. Because this claimant could not offer any new information to support their position, and nothing in the record indicated the voluntary submission of information, the request was again denied. This claimant provided the information only after multiple requests from CFTC. Therefore, the claimant was not eligible to receive an award in this case.The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has awarded a $625,000 bounty to four whistleblowers who provided information and assistance in an investigation.

A total of nine claimants submitted award applications for this enforcement action. Of that number, only four received awards. Claimants 2, 3, 4, and 6 received bounties from the civil monetary penalties levied against the two defendants involved in the enforcement action. Claimant 4 offered the highest level of assistance and cooperation and received the largest portion of the bounty. All four offered substantial assistance that included providing names and other information which supported the Commission’s action against the defendants. Continue reading

by

The SEC has awarded $3M to three different whistleblowers for assisting with three distinct covered actions in three separate orders. 1. In the first order, the Claims Review Staff (CRS) awarded a bounty of $1.5 million to an individual who provided original information and voluntarily gave assistance to SEC staff that led to a successful covered action. 2. In the second order, CRS awarded a $1 million bounty to an individual who also voluntarily offered original information that led the SEC to a successful covered enforcement action. In this case, the whistleblower also assisted SEC staff, including multiple interviews. 3. The third order saw a bounty of $400,000 to a whistleblower who first reported their concerns internally, leading to a ceasing of the wrongful activity. The individual subsequently reported the information to the SEC, leading to the opening of an investigation. Over the course of the investigation, the whistleblower met with SEC Enforcement staff, offering additional information and continued assistance. Ultimately, the charges in the covered enforcement action would “bear a close nexus” to the whistleblower’s stated allegations.The SEC has awarded $3M to three different whistleblowers for assisting with three distinct covered actions in three separate orders.

1. In the first order, the Claims Review Staff (CRS) awarded a bounty of $1.5 million to an individual who provided original information and voluntarily gave assistance to SEC staff that led to a successful covered action. Continue reading

by

Compared to the decades of experience investors have with the S&P and NASDAQ, everyone's a comparative rookie when it comes to cryptocurrency. And crypto's appeal often comes from the idea that crypto exists outside of traditional banking. However, overlooked in that idea is the reality that—not unlike traditional banking and other investment platforms—many crypto services charge users expensive fees for these crypto transactions. And these fees can get very steep, very quickly.  However, our experienced securities attorneys understand how the federal securities laws apply to cryptocurrency. All that's true, assuming that those platforms and third-party vendors are properly disclosing and administering those fees. But that's not always the case: In 2020, Robinhood paid $65 million in fines to settle claims that it failed to disclose commission fees and failed to get the best possible terms for when executing customers' orders. So let's discuss some elements that already can influence crypto fees.Compared to the decades of experience investors have with the S&P and NASDAQ, everyone’s a comparative rookie when it comes to cryptocurrency. And crypto’s appeal often comes from the idea that crypto exists outside of traditional banking. However, overlooked in that idea is the reality that—not unlike traditional banking and other investment platforms—many crypto services charge users expensive fees for these crypto transactions. And these fees can get very steep, very quickly.  However, our experienced securities attorneys understand how the federal securities laws apply to cryptocurrency. Continue reading

by

In the past few years, industry-watchers have seen a rise in lawsuits filed against pension funds: Clients have been suing pension fund providers for charging excessive fees—even higher fees than they charge other clients for similar investment products—and other wrongdoing. And now, following a unanimous decision issued by the Supreme Court in January 2022, even more clients may begin bringing lawsuits against providers—since the Court's ruling clarifies pension fund providers' duties to their customers. Hughes v. Northwestern University In Hughes v. Northwestern University, the plaintiffs alleged that defendant Northwestern failed to meet the fiduciary duties required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because it offered excessively expensive investment options and charged extreme recordkeeping fees. The Court of Appeals had held that, because the clients could ultimately pick a plan from a range of plans offered, Northwestern had fulfilled its responsibilities to them. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Instead, the Court held that Northwestern's fiduciary duties required that it regularly analyze the value of the plans it offered. If the provider found plans that were less beneficial to their clients, the answer was not just to include more plans, but also to stop offering the less valuable plans. Accordingly, the fact that customers could exercise judgment in their plan selection did not alleviate Northwestern of its responsibility to make its own judgment calls.In the past few years, industry-watchers have seen a rise in lawsuits filed against pension funds: Clients have been suing pension fund providers for charging excessive fees—even higher fees than they charge other clients for similar investment products—and other wrongdoing. And now, following a unanimous decision issued by the Supreme Court in January 2022, even more clients may begin bringing lawsuits against providers—since the Court’s ruling clarifies pension fund providers’ duties to their customers. Continue reading

by

In a previous post, we began to address some general ways in which a financial advisor can overcharge investment clients. But it's worth a bit more focus on one specific type of investment: margin accounts. Some advisors contractually steer customers into margin accounts as the default investment. But margin accounts are inherently riskier investments, and investors with these accounts are more vulnerable to being overcharged by their advisors. The Basics of Margin Accounts As the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) explains, in a margin account, clients pay part of the price for stock while a broker loans you the rest of the money to purchase securities. If the stock goes up, then clients can make a large return, but if the stock drops, they can lose a larger percentage of their investment than if they'd paid cash—even losing their entire investment. On top of that loss, they have to pay the relevant fees and the interest on the margin loan—even though the clients have lost all of the money the advisor has loaned them. Why Margin Accounts Can Lead To Large Losses By the very nature of the margin account, trades are made quickly and frequently—and advisors can make big changes to the client's investments entirely on their own. For example, if the advisor makes a "margin call," an advisor can sell a client's securities to pay for the loan without giving the client any notice of the sale or allowing any input on which securities the advisor will sell.In a previous post, we began to address some general ways in which a financial advisor can overcharge investment clients. But it’s worth a bit more focus on one specific type of investment: margin accounts. Some advisors contractually steer customers into margin accounts as the default investment. But margin accounts are inherently riskier investments, and investors with these accounts are more vulnerable to being overcharged by their advisors. Continue reading

by

The SEC has again given an award to a whistleblower. This time it totals $3.5 million, and comes after multiple instances of support from the individual. The whistleblower’s contribution prompted SEC staff to investigate more possible securities violations. This made the investigation easier for the SEC staff, which saved them time and resources. The additional information also helped with the whistleblower’s discussion of settlement. Not one, but two SEC enforcement actions were successful as a result of the whistleblower’s assistance and cooperation. The second enforcement action came from the same “nucleus of operative facts”  as the first action.The SEC has again given an award to a whistleblower. This time it totals $3.5 million, and comes after multiple instances of support from the individual.

The whistleblower’s contribution prompted SEC staff to investigate more possible securities violations. This made the investigation easier for the SEC staff, which saved them time and resources. Continue reading

Badges
Contact Information
Silver Law Group
11780 W Sample Rd
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Phone: 954.755.4799 Toll Free: 800.975.4345
The Law Firm of David R. Chase, P.A.
1700 E Las Olas Blvd
#305
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.920.7779
By Appointment Only
229 W 36th St 8th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Phone: 212.377.5227
By Appointment Only
4755 Technology Way #205
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: 561.665.8613
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Silver Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design