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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights