• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Blog Signup 📨

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies
You are here: Home / Business / SEC awards whistleblower reduced amount citing whistleblower culpability

By Occasional Contributors | 2 Minutes Read June 20, 2017

SEC awards whistleblower reduced amount citing whistleblower culpability

whistleblowerIn a recent order, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission made an order awarding a whistleblower 20% of any money collected by the SEC in connection with the whistleblower’s tip, rather than the maximum entitlement of 30% under the SEC’s Whistleblower Program. The February 28, 2017 order emphasized that the reduced award was a result of the whistleblower’s culpability in connection with the securities law violations and the whistleblower’s delay in reporting the violation to the SEC. In keeping with the SEC’s practice, the announcement did not identify the whistleblower or the company and individuals involved. This is not the first time that the SEC has allowed a whistleblower who was complicit in the securities law violation to receive an award, underscoring the SEC’s view that information from tipsters (including those who may have been involved in wrongdoing) is critical to successful prosecutions.

The OSC’s similar approach to whistleblower culpability

Last summer, the Ontario Securities Commission launched its own widely-anticipated Whistleblower Program, which was modeled on the SEC’s whistleblower framework. Under the program, eligible whistleblowers are eligible to receive up to $5 million. As Osler noted in our comment letter to the OSC during the Request for Comment period for the Whistleblower Program, and again when the whistleblower program came into force, we agree with the position that similar to the approach taken in the US, culpable whistleblowers should not necessarily be prevented from receiving awards, and that the level of culpability should be a factor considered when determining if the individual is eligible for an award and for how large that award should be.
The OSC Whistleblower Program considers whistleblower culpability under Section 17(1) and 17(2) in a manner consistent with our perspective, stating:
17. (1) A whistleblower who is complicit in the violation of Ontario securities law about which the whistleblower submitted information to the Commission may nonetheless be eligible for a whistleblower award.
(2) The degree to which a whistleblower is complicit in the conduct that is the subject of the information provided to the Commission is a factor that may decrease the amount of any whistleblower award that may be made.
Despite what is currently a fairly consistent policy approach taken by the SEC and OSC when dealing with culpable whistleblowers, the position that such whistleblowers should be eligible to receive an award remains a topic of debate. In the US, potential legislation that includes a provision that would disallow a whistleblower award if the whistleblower were a co-conspirator in the securities law violation is set to be put before the House of Representatives. As a result, Canadian securities industry stakeholders should monitor developments related to culpability and whistleblower awards in the US, as they may impact future OSC decisions on the same issues.
By: Raphael T. Eghan and Steve Marmer, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

  • About
  • Latest Posts
Occasional Contributors
In addition to our regular guest bloggers, First Reference Talks blog published by First Reference, provides occasional guest post opportunities from various subject matter experts on the topics of human resources, employment/labour law, internal controls, information technology, not-for-profit, business, privacy, tax, finance and accounting, and accessibility in Canada among others. If you are a subject matter expert and would like to become an occasional blogger, please contact us. If you liked this post, subscribe to First Reference Talks blog to get regular updates.
Latest posts by Occasional Contributors (see all)
  • Corporations Canada and new transparency about federal non-profit corporations under the CNCA and new fees for certain documents - December 21, 2022
  • How much should a Canadian registered charity spend on administration? - November 30, 2022
  • Finance proposes changes to disbursement quota for charities and some increased transparency - November 11, 2022

Article by Occasional Contributors / Business / anonimity for whistleblowers, financial rewards for whistleblowers, monetary incentives for whistleblowers, Osler, reprisals against whistleblowers, securities act, whistleblower, whistleblower culpability, whistleblower protections

Share with a friend or colleague

Get the Latest Posts in your Inbox for Free!

Electronic monitoring

About Occasional Contributors

In addition to our regular guest bloggers, First Reference Talks blog published by First Reference, provides occasional guest post opportunities from various subject matter experts on the topics of human resources, employment/labour law, internal controls, information technology, not-for-profit, business, privacy, tax, finance and accounting, and accessibility in Canada among others. If you are a subject matter expert and would like to become an occasional blogger, please contact us. If you liked this post, subscribe to First Reference Talks blog to get regular updates.

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference is the leading publisher of up to date, practical and authoritative HR compliance and policy databases that are essential to ensure organizations meet their due diligence and duty of care requirements.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • Buy Policies

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy