— 2 Whistleblowers Ask The Second Circuit To Decide —
Under the SEC whistleblower program, people who provide information about securities frauds to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission can receive monetary whistleblower awards. Those awards can range from 10% – 30% of the amount of fines and penalties that the SEC collects from the transgressors, so long as the SEC collects more than $1 million from the perpetrators of the fraud. In some cases, the SEC has given out whistleblower awards of millions or even tens of millions of dollars. But there are a lot of rules about what a whistleblower must do to be eligible to claim an SEC whistleblower award.
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in a case challenging one of those rules. The rule being challenged has to do with the kind of notice that the SEC must give to let people know that they should file their applications to claim an SEC whistleblower award in a particular case.
The 90-Day Window To Claim An SEC Whistleblower Award
As background, to claim an SEC whistleblower award, the claimant must submit his or her application for an award within 90 days of the date on which the SEC wins its monetary judgment or order against the wrongdoers.
The order or judgment could be in the form of a court order requiring the defendants to pay disgorgement, interest, and/or penalties to the SEC. It could be the result of an in-house SEC administrative proceeding. Or it could be the result of a settlement between the alleged wrongdoers and the SEC.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances, if someone does not submit his or her claim for an SEC whistleblower reward within the 90-day window, he or she will be barred from receiving a reward.
The Commission has sole discretion to determine whether it believes there are sufficient extenuating circumstances to warrant an exception for someone who misses the 90-day deadline.
In the case before the Second Circuit, the two whistleblowers put in their claim for an SEC whistleblower award approximately two years after the 90-day window had expired. The SEC did not grant them an exception to the filing deadline and denied their award claims.
How Does Someone Find Out When Their Time To Claim An SEC Whistleblower Award Has Begun To Run?
The current practice is that when the SEC collects over $1 million in a case, it posts the name of that case on a list on the SEC’s website. That list is called a Notice of Covered Actions or “NoCA” list.
The SEC may not post a case on its NoCA list until a few days or even weeks after it wins a judgment or order of over $1 million. Recognizing this, the SEC has interpreted the 90-day window for award applications to begin running from the date when the case first appears on the NoCA list, not the earlier date when the SEC actually got the order or judgment. In some cases, where the whistleblower learns of the order or judgment in advance of the NoCA listing, this could give his or her SEC whistleblower lawyer some extra time in preparing the application for an award.
The NoCA list sets forth the case name, the date on which the case was posted, and the date by which award claims are due. This is called “constructive notice” to the public.
The practice of giving “constructive notice” places the onus on SEC whistleblowers to monitor the NoCA list themselves so that they do not miss their filing deadline to claim an SEC whistleblower award.
Some applicants in prior cases who were denied awards argued that the Commission was either required to or should have given them “actual notice” that their time to claim an SEC whistleblower award had begun to run. In those cases, the Commission rejected the notion that it was required to provide “actual notice” by calling, writing, or otherwise contacting every (or any) potential award claimant directly.
The Second Circuit Case
The SEC’s practice of providing constructive notice through its NoCA list is what is being challenged in the case presently before the Second Circuit.
The SEC posted the case on the NoCA list on its website. But the two award claimants said that they never saw it or knew about it, which is why they did not file their award claims until approximately two years later.
The Second Circuit heard oral arguments in the case last week. During oral arguments, the two award claimants asked the Second Circuit to rule that the SEC was either required to or should have been required to provide them with actual notice that an award had become available and that their time to file for an award had begun to run.
The Second Circuit has posted an audio transcript of the oral arguments in the case. You can listen to the oral arguments by going to the Second Circuit’s website here and searching for Cerny v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (docket #16-934, date argued: August 30, 2017).
* * *
As an SEC whistleblower law firm, The Pickholz Law Offices has represented employees, officers, and others in SEC whistleblower cases involving financial institutions and public companies listed in the Fortune Top 10, Top 20, Top 50, Top 100, Top 500, and the Forbes Global 2000. We were the first law firm ever to win an SEC whistleblower reward for a client on appeal to the full Commission in Washington, an achievement that Inside Counsel magazine named one of the five milestones of the SEC whistleblower program.
For more information about The Pickholz Law Offices, you can click on any of the links in the margins of this page.
If you would like to speak with an SEC whistleblower attorney, please feel free to call Jason R. Pickholz at 347-746-1222.
The above information is not and should not be construed as providing legal advice. It is not and should never be considered as a substitute for consulting with your own attorney. The use of this web site or this page does not constitute or create any attorney-client, fiduciary, or confidential relationship between The Pickholz Law Offices LLC and anyone using this web site, or anyone else. The information contained on this website is for informational purposes only. The content of this web site may not reflect current developments. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results of prior cases or matters contained on this web site are not indicative of future results or outcomes, and should not be taken as a prediction, promise, or guarantee of any future result or outcome. No one who accesses this web site should act or refrain from acting based on anything contained on this web site. For additional terms and conditions governing the use of this web site, please click on the “disclaimer” link at the bottom of this page or click here.