Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Veil Parted on SEC Whistleblower Award
June 30, 2016

Early this year, the SEC announced it had paid a whistleblower award of “more than $700,000” to a company “outsider” who “conducted a detailed analysis” that led to a successful enforcement action against the company.

Customarily, such awards, which are granted pursuant to the whistleblower program mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, leave many potentially interesting facts cloaked in a veil of secrecy. In this case, however, the whistleblower took the unusual step of identifying himself and providing additional information to the press.

Accordingly, it appears:

  • The exact award amount was $750,000, which was 15 percent of a related $5,000,000 fine against the New York Stock Exchange and its parent, NYSE Euronext (as compared to the 30 percent maximum the SEC is permitted to award under the program).
  • The fine was for the exchange’s conduct, over an extended period in 2008, of releasing certain market data to feeds for its proprietary customers slightly sooner than it released the same data to consolidated feeds available to the public.
  • This was the first financial penalty the SEC assessed against an exchange. • The whistleblower was Eric Scott Hunsader, who owns a market data firm and has long asserted prominently that the SEC has done too little to ensure market integrity.
  • Although Hunsader discovered the violation, he provided his initial detailed analysis of the violation to the SEC prior to the whistleblower program’s establishment. His award, therefore, was based solely on additional analysis that he thereafter provided to the SEC.

This case provides rare (though still imperfect) insight into how the SEC staff may weigh various facts and circumstances in making decisions about whistleblower awards. More generally, however, the case underscores that companies’ exposure to whistleblowers with whom they have no affiliation is far from just theoretical.
Authored By
Image: Thomas C. Lauerman
Thomas C. Lauerman
Related Practices
Securities Litigation and Enforcement Securities Transactions and Compliance
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.