1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |SEC Issues Record $279 Million Award to Whistleblower Expanding an Existing Investigation

SEC Issues Record $279 Million Award to Whistleblower Expanding an Existing Investigation

What You Need to Know

  • Key takeaway #1

    The SEC awarded a record-breaking whistleblower award of $279 million related to successful actions brought by the SEC and one other agency.

  • Key takeaway #2

    This is a reminder that whistleblowers are financially incentivized to further government investigations, not just to initiate them. Companies that self-report misconduct to the government (or are already involved in government-initiated investigations) should consider the possibility of whistleblower involvement as the investigation progresses.

  • Key takeaway #3

    The size of the award is certain to attract potential whistleblowers; it should also serve as a reminder that SEC-regulated companies must offer robust, retaliation-free, avenues for internal reporting.

Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.09.23

On May 5, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) announced a record-setting whistleblower award of nearly $279 million.  This award more than doubles the SEC’s previous $114 million record-setter, issued in October 2020.

The SEC award order was heavily redacted, obscuring (as usual) any details about the underlying enforcement actions.  What is known is that the assistance the whistleblower provided contributed to the SEC’s enforcement action and two actions pursued by another agency.  Notably, the whistleblower merited this outsized award even though he or she did not prompt the opening of the Commission’s investigation, but provided information related to “certain of the conduct that the Commission ultimately charged. . . .”  The whistleblower’s sustained assistance, which included multiple interviews and written submissions, expanded the scope of the misconduct that was ultimately charged, and, per the SEC, was critical to the success of the actions.  This award therefore serves as a stark reminder that the SEC awards not only those who initiate a government investigation, but also those who further one.  Companies involved in government-initiated investigations cannot discount the possibility of whistleblower involvement at any stage. 

Not surprisingly, the SEC is touting this recent development as reflecting the “tremendous success” of its whistleblower program.  Clearly, this record-breaking award has the potential to incentivize whistleblowers to come forward with information about potential securities law violations.  

While the size of the award is certain to attract potential whistleblowers, it is also a reminder to companies regulated by the SEC that they must offer robust, retaliation-free, avenues for internal reporting.  And companies must keep those internal reporting channels open even when an investigation is already underway.

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....

View All Insights