• AML
  • Qui Tam
  • SEC
  • CFTC
  • FCPA
  • FAQS
Subscribe
Donate
No Result
View All Result
Whistleblower Network News
The Truth at Any Cost.
Qui Tam, Compliance and Anti-Corruption News.
Whistleblower Network News
No Result
View All Result
Home Exclusives

WNN Exclusive: FOIA Documents Discredit Articles Attacking SEC Whistleblower Program

Geoff SchwellerGrace SchepisbyGeoff SchwellerandGrace Schepis
October 12, 2022
in Exclusives, SEC
Reading Time: 8 mins read
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission building
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail

This article is the second in the WNN series investigating FOIA documents from the SEC about the agency’s whistleblower program. The first article outlined Big Law’s newfound involvement in the SEC program. Read it here.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by Whistleblower Network News and the National Whistleblower Center (NWC), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has released the 1034 pages of documents that served as the basis for recent articles attacking the SEC Whistleblower Program.

In July and August, Bloomberg Law and University of Kansas Professor Alexander Platt published separate articles critiquing the SEC’s highly successful whistleblower award program. Bloomberg and Platt claimed that the documents released by the SEC in response to their FOIA requests revealed that the program is shrouded in secrecy and favors a small group of law firms with connections to the agency.

Register for National Whistleblower Day

WNN’s investigation into the FOIA documents reveals that these allegations unfairly criticize the Commission’s whistleblower program.

“The documents demonstrate that the SEC carefully processed numerous whistleblower claims from individuals not represented by attorneys. It also shows that a vast majority of the law firms that successfully represented whistleblowers do not have any former SEC employees on staff,” explained whistleblower attorney Stephen M. Kohn, who represented WNN in the FOIA proceeding.

“Furthermore, the SEC’s extensive cooperation with the FOIA requests demonstrates the agency’s commitment to transparency around the whistleblower program while retaining its commitment to protecting whistleblowers’ confidentiality,” Kohn added.

Key Findings:

  • The Argument presented by Bloomberg and Platt that a small group of former SEC employees dominates the program is inaccurate. The FOIA documents revealed that 64 different law firms represented whistleblowers who obtained rewards and that over 80% of these firms never employed a former SEC attorney.
  • The articles stated or implied that the program was prejudicial to whistleblowers not represented by attorneys. The FOIA documents revealed that 54 award recipients were pro se and not represented by counsel. This number is an incredibly high percentage of positive reward decisions, given that courts almost always dismiss pro se claims.
  • The FOIA documents produced no direct evidence of any misconduct.
  • No evidence that the SEC program was illegally “shrouded in secrecy.” Indeed, the FOIA requests identifying the law firms that represented whistleblowers were responded to in full, except in three cases where identifying the firm could have resulted in identifying the whistleblower. Regarding those cases, the SEC advised Platt of his right to appeal the withholding in court.
  • The SEC FOIA office fully cooperated with Platt’s FOIA requests over two years. The FOIA documents identify attorneys and law firms representing successful applicants in all but three cases. They also identify the cases involved, copies of the decisions involved, and the amounts awarded (or the percentage of an award) in each case. Likewise, every award given to a pro se litigate was identified, along with the amount of each award and the underlying award decision.

Attacks on the Program

On July 26, Bloomberg Law published a story entitled “SEC Enriches Fraudsters, Lawyers as Secrecy Shrouds Tips Program.” The article’s sensational lead paragraph concludes that the program “often ignores its own rules, shields much of its work from the public, and has been a financial boon for law firms that hired former agency officials.”

On August 4, Platt published a “draft” of his non-peer-reviewed article entitled “The Whistleblower Industrial Complex.” Platt alleged that the SEC’s “tip-triage function has been outsourced to a group of well-connected, repeat-player, private whistleblower lawyers who are exempt from any meaningful transparency, regulation, or public accountability.”

WNN’s review of the same FOIA documents provided to Platt and Bloomberg uncovered strong documentation rebutting these arguments and the negative inferences raised in the articles.

No Evidence of Favoritism or a “Whistleblower Industrial Complex”

In his article, “The Whistleblower Industrial Complex,” Platt claims that the program has been “captured by a small group of well-connected repeat player attorneys.” Platt suggests that the whistleblower program unfairly dismisses whistleblowers not represented by attorneys and that firms that employ former-SEC officials are privileged by the SEC Whistleblower Program. This line of thinking is also put forward in the Bloomberg article, which highlights braggadocious comments by whistleblower attorneys with ties to the SEC as proof of unfair favoritism or access to this “tight circle.”

WNN’s review of the FOIA documents reveals no proof to support Platt and Bloomberg’s claims. First, not a single document showed any favoritism or privileged access granted to firms with former SEC employees. Despite receiving access to over 1000 pages of SEC documents, Platt was only able to base these allegations on supposition, distorted facts, and comments by a few SEC whistleblower attorneys trying to oversell their connections to gain clients.

In fact, the documents do not support Platt and Bloomberg’s allegations. They directly undermine them. The FOIA documents revealed that the SEC had ruled in favor of whistleblowers represented by 64 different law firms. Platt reviewed each of these firms and concluded that 12 of them had former SEC employees working in the firm. Over 80% of successful firms had no “inside” track as a result of their hiring of former government employees. Moreover, many of the law firms that did hire former SEC or Justice Department lawyers were traditional defense firms. The Bloomberg and Platt articles did not mention these firms.

The Commission also disclosed information on how many pro se whistleblowers obtained rewards. These whistleblowers not only had no insider connections but also represented themselves (a process the Commission promotes and makes extremely easy by publishing a user-friendly online form that any individual can file). The SEC revealed that 54 such pro se whistleblowers obtained rewards. This number does not account for whistleblowers who were not represented until after the SEC had launched investigations based on their disclosures or whistleblowers who obtained an attorney only after the SEC issued a preliminary decision in the case.

“The SEC staff clearly takes pro se whistleblowers seriously, investigating their concerns and awarding them when they qualify,” said Siri Nelson, the Executive Director of the National Whistleblower Center.

Bloomberg heavily relied upon quotes from two SEC whistleblower attorneys with connections to the SEC to justify its story. However, the SEC documents support Bloomberg’s conclusion that these braggadocious comments were most likely made “as a way to lure new clients.”

“Overall, more whistleblowers received awards that were not represented by attorneys than those represented by a firm with connections to the SEC. Likewise, over 80% of successful law firms did not employ former SEC officials. The program has not been ‘captured’ by a small clique of ‘insider’ law firms as Platt and Bloomberg portrayed,” said added Nelson.

SEC’s Responsive to FOIA’s Shows Transparent and Cooperative Program

Another central claim advanced by Platt and Bloomberg is that the SEC Whistleblower Program is “shrouded in secrecy” and lacks transparency. The agency’s cooperation with FOIA requests directly confronts this notion.

The FOIA documents reveal that the SEC bent over backwards to process, over two years, the requests filed by Professor Platt. Platt was granted a full fee waiver and was not charged any copying or search fees, despite the extraordinary effort the Commission had to engage in to identify the information requested by Platt.

According to numerous back-and-forth correspondence and internal appeals, the SEC’s FOIA office painstakingly reviewed the confidential enforcement records of every successful whistleblower case from the program’s inception until a specific date in 2021 over two years. It identified: (a) every case in which the whistleblower represented him or herself, and the awards obtained; (b) the identity of every case where a whistleblower was represented by an attorney; (c) the name of each case matched with the attorney or pro se whistleblower [this enabled Platt to carefully review the facts of each case and the basis for each award in an attempt to identify misconduct]; and the amounts of awards obtained. Finally, each case needed to be carefully reviewed to ensure that the SEC would not release confidential information and that the released materials could not inadvertently result in the identification of a whistleblower. Thus, the Commission released all requested disclosable information on every case where a lawyer was involved and every case where a pro se whistleblower obtained a reward. It only withheld the attorney’s identity in three cases where that information could have resulted in identifying the confidential whistleblower.

Platt was informed of his right to file a court case to obtain the materials requested when disagreements emerged. No lawsuit was ever filed. There was 100% transparency regarding every law firm representing the whistleblowers, the rewards obtained, and the cases involved. The Commission even provided Platt with a copy of the FOIA request filed by WNN and the National Whistleblower Center.

“The documents show a program that is well-run, honest, and fair. The program clearly values pro se whistleblowers, and there is no direct evidence that it plays favorites with firms that have former SEC employees on staff,” said whistleblower attorney Kohn.

Further Reading:

Selected FOIA Documents Released by the SEC

WNN Exclusive: SEC FOIA Documents Reveal Big Law Defense Firms are Confidentially Representing Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers

List of Law Firms that Obtained Rewards in Whistleblower Cases as of 2021

List of Awards Obtained by the Six Defense Law Firms

List of pro se Cases where Whistleblowers Obtained a Reward

FAQ on the SEC’s Dodd-Frank Act program

FAQ on Confidentiality of Dodd-Frank Act claims

Previous Post

WNN Exclusive: SEC FOIA Documents Reveal Big Law Defense Firms are Confidentially Representing Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers

Next Post

Case Management Failures & Possible Whistleblower Chilling: HHS OIG’s Findings at Fort Bliss

Geoff Schweller

Geoff Schweller

Geoff Schweller is the Assistant News Editor for Whistleblower Network News. He coordinates news coverage, and also writes about breaking whistleblower news, SEC whistleblowers, IRS whistleblowers, CFTC whistleblowers, and federal employee whistleblowers. Geoff graduated from Hamilton College with a degree in Sociology and minors in French & Francophone Studies and Cinema & New Media Studies.

Grace Schepis

Grace Schepis

Grace Schepis is a Special Correspondent for Whistleblower Network News. In spring 2022, she graduated magna cum laude from the University of Alabama with a master's degree in Public Administration and a bachelor’s in Political Science. On campus, Grace led the competitive Mock Trial team, multiple voting rights organizations, and was a Staff Writer for the Pacemaker-award winning campus newspaper, The Crimson White.

Next Post
Wall of filing cabinets

Case Management Failures & Possible Whistleblower Chilling: HHS OIG’s Findings at Fort Bliss

Receive Daily Alerts

Subscribe to receive daily breaking news and legislative developments sent to your inbox.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Most Popular

Advocates Detail Need for SEC Whistleblower Reform

Raytheon Whistleblower Receives $1.5 Million for Alleging Cybersecurity Non-Compliance

Ruling Striking Down Trump Order Targeting Law Firm Seen as Crucial for Whistleblowers

MJH Healthcare Settles Whistleblower Allegations of Postal Rate Fraud for $2 Million

Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Stronger Whistleblower Laws in Australia, Mirroring Polling in US

Four Whistleblowers Receive $1.3 Million for Alleging Genetic Testing Fraud Scheme

Whistleblower Poll

Whistleblower Poll
Whistleblower Poll

Exclusive Marist Poll: Overwhelming Public Support Among Likely Voters For Increased Whistleblower Protections

byGeoff Schweller
October 6, 2020

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

STAY INFORMED.
Subscribe to receive breaking whistleblower updates.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

About Us

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Careers

Subscribe

  • Daily Mail
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • YouTube Channel

Contribute

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Submission Guidelines
  • Reprint Guidelines

Your Experience

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Help

  • Rules for Whistleblowers
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Advertise
Whistleblower Network News

Whistleblower Network News is an independent online newspaper providing our readers with up-to-date information on whistleblowing. Our goal is to be the best source of information on important qui tam, anti-corruption, compliance, and whistleblower law developments. 

Submit an Article

Copyright © 2025, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

This Newspaper/Web Site is made available by the publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this website, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Newspaper/Web Site publisher. The Newspaper/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Become a Whistleblower Network News Subscriber

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Subscribe to WNN

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Subscribe to WNN
RSVP to National Whistleblower Day 2025! July 30, 2025 on Capitol Hill
RSVP NOW

Add New Playlist

No Result
View All Result
  • Exclusives
  • Government
    • False Claims-Qui Tam
    • Federal Employees
    • Intelligence
  • Corporate
    • CFTC & Commodities
    • Dodd-Frank
    • IRS & Tax
    • SEC & Securities
  • Features
  • Legislation
  • International
    • Foreign Corruption
  • Rewards
  • Whistleblower of the Week
  • Environment & Climate
  • Opinion
  • Editorial
  • Employment
    • Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers
    • Retaliation
    • OSHA
  • Make National Whistleblower Day Permanent
  • Media
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • National Whistleblower Day
  • Whistleblower Poll
  • Whistleblower Resources
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Resources for Locating An Attorney
    • The New Whistleblowers Handbook

Copyright © 2024, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

Go to mobile version