September 15, 2018
The proposed rules make a lot of sacrifices. From changing the game on Whistleblowers who already submitted a tip or a Whistleblower Claim to providing additional uncertainty on how awards will be processed - almost every aspect of new the proposed rules is likely to deter Whistleblowers from submitting information to the Commission.
Therefore, if these rules are truly the rules that the Commission wishes to adopt, there needs to be adequate calculation that the negative impacts of these rules will not outweigh the positive effects. However, in the released documents by the SEC, there is insufficient calculation to determine the true cause and effect of these changes.
For example, because the SEC has not disclosed the percentage or number of pending Whistleblower tips that could be subject to summary procedures, public commenters are unable to come to an adequately educated opinion to determine whether a limited level of due process is worth an unknown level of increased expediency.
This is very concerning and I am beginning to wonder if the SEC has done any internal calculations on this matter. I'm sure commenters would have very different opinions on this matter if the SEC revealed that 90% of pending Whistleblower Claims could be subject to summary procedures versus a situation where only 10% or 50% of pending Whistleblower Claims could be subject to summary procedures.
Similarily, without the SEC disclosing the actual impact of these changes (reduction of backlog, reducing wait time by a certain number of months), it is impossible for the public to make an informed comment on whether these changes and the subsequent sacrifices that it causes are worth the currently not-disclosed-benifits.