SEC Announces Record $30-35 Million Whistleblower Award
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.30.14
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced last week that it is poised to pay out a record-breaking $30-35 million award to a whistleblower. The previous record payment was $14 million, and most of the payouts under the Dodd-Frank Act's "bounty" provisions have been well under $1 million. This latest award demonstrates why every publicly-traded employer should maintain an active compliance program, designed to encourage employees to report potential compliance issues internally.
The SEC's award is significant for two additional reasons beyond its sheer size. First, the whistleblower is a foreign national and many of the alleged violations occurred overseas. This award shows the SEC is not deterred by a number of court decisions that have limited the territorial reach of several laws enforced by the agency. In fact, the SEC included a lengthy footnote in the announcement of the award, articulating its belief that it can make such an award where the information from the whistleblower leads to a successful enforcement action in the United States regardless of where the whistleblower resides or where the actions at issue took place. In so doing, the SEC took the position that the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank Ltd., which limited application of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to transactions in securities listed on U.S. exchanges or to domestic transactions in other securities, did not prohibit the award. The SEC argued that because it was able to bring an enforcement action in the United States based on the tipster's information, there was a sufficient territorial nexus to authorize the award. The SEC also stated that the Second Circuit's recent decision in Liu v. Siemens AG, which refused to apply Dodd-Frank's anti-retaliation provisions to a foreign national working overseas, was not controlling. Multinational employers should ensure their compliance and reporting programs apply globally, as there will undoubtedly be an uptick of both domestically and internationally sourced tips as a result of the SEC's position on these issues and this massive award.
Second, the SEC noted that the award could have been even larger, but it reduced the amount because the agency believed the whistleblower unreasonably delayed reporting the information. The SEC stated that the whistleblower's delay wrongly caused investors to continue to suffer monetary injury that could have been avoided had the whistleblower come forward earlier. In reducing the award due to the delay, the SEC has arguably incentivized future whistleblowers to bypass internal company reporting programs and immediately report to the SEC as soon as they have knowledge of potential securities violations. Employers should continue to utilize, and internally promote, robust compliance and reporting programs. However, the SEC's award may make it less likely that employers will get an opportunity to address any concerns before the government potentially intervenes.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
