Discussing the SEC Whistleblower Program's New Definition of "Independent Analysis" with ChatGPT

I have recently discovered OpenAi’s ChatGPT and am very impressed with its linguistic abilities. Given that I have recently spent considerable time studying the SEC Whistleblower program, I tested ChatGPT with some tricky questions derived from the SEC’s new interpretation of what constitutes “Independent Analysis.”

As background, I was denied a Whistleblower award from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. I wrote a refutation that succeeded … kind of. I did get the award, but I did not receive complete feedback for all of the points I made in my refutation.  (I did not employ an attorney.) ChatGPT gave me the opportunity to get some feedback. So I guess I'm also testing part of my rebuttal. 

Here are some answers that OpenAI’s creation generated. Of course, the following is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for getting legal advice.

 ________________________

 

Are you familiar with the us securities and exchange commission whistleblower program?

Yes, I am familiar with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whistleblower program. It is a program that offers financial rewards and protections to individuals who report possible violations of federal securities laws to the SEC.

Are you familiar with the recent changes to the program?

As an AI language model, I am aware of the recent changes made to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whistleblower program. In September 2020, the SEC amended its rules to provide greater incentives and protections for whistleblowers, including, among other things, the ability to receive awards based on Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements entered into by the SEC or Department of Justice. Additionally, the SEC clarified the scope of the anti-retaliation protections afforded to whistleblowers under the program.

What about the definition of "independent analysis"? Has that changed?

Yes, the definition of "independent analysis" has changed as part of the recent amendments to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whistleblower program. The SEC now requires that a whistleblower's information be based on an analysis that is not "reasonably apparent" to the SEC from publicly available sources. This means that a whistleblower must provide information that is derived from the whistleblower's own independent knowledge or analysis, and cannot be based on information that is generally known or available to the public. This change is intended to encourage whistleblowers to provide more original information to the SEC.

Do you see a contradiction in your third sentence?

I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused. To clarify, the SEC whistleblower program provides financial rewards and protections to individuals who voluntarily provide information to the SEC about possible violations of federal securities laws. The program encourages individuals to come forward with original information that is not already known to the SEC and that could lead to successful enforcement actions.

The recent amendments to the program, including the changes to the definition of "independent analysis," were made to further incentivize whistleblowers to provide original information to the SEC. The amendments clarify that a whistleblower must provide information that is not "reasonably apparent" to the SEC from publicly available sources, but they do not require that the information be entirely independent of public sources. In other words, a whistleblower's analysis may still rely on publicly available information, as long as the whistleblower provides additional insight or analysis that is not already known to the SEC.

But wouldn't all effective communication of information provided to the SEC become necessarily apparent simply by the fact that the information was successfully communicated?

You raise an interesting point. While it is true that the act of reporting information to the SEC could make that information apparent to the SEC, the definition of "independent analysis" under the whistleblower program is focused on the nature and source of the information itself, rather than the act of reporting it.

Under the program's current definition, a whistleblower's information is considered to be based on independent analysis if it is not "reasonably apparent" to the SEC from publicly available sources. This means that a whistleblower must provide information that is derived from the whistleblower's own knowledge or analysis, and cannot simply be a repeat of information that is already publicly known or available.

In other words, the key is not whether the SEC is already aware of the information, but rather whether the whistleblower is providing unique or original insight that is not already known to the SEC. This requirement is intended to incentivize whistleblowers to provide information that is not already being pursued by the SEC, and that could therefore be valuable in furthering the agency's enforcement efforts.

So, in other words, a whistleblower must not copy an inference from publicly available text but must derive therefrom and add a new inference. Is this consistent with your explanation and the SEC program?

Yes, that is a good way to summarize it. Under the SEC whistleblower program, a whistleblower's information must be derived from the whistleblower's own knowledge or analysis and cannot simply repeat information that is already publicly known or available. This means that the whistleblower must add their own original analysis or insight to publicly available information, rather than simply repeating or regurgitating that information.

The recent amendments to the program clarify that a whistleblower's analysis may still rely on publicly available information, as long as the whistleblower provides additional insight or analysis that is not already known to the SEC. The key is to provide information that is not "reasonably apparent" to the SEC from publicly available sources.

So, a whistleblower could use publicly available information as a starting point for their analysis, but they must add their own independent insight or analysis to that information in order to qualify for protection and a potential financial reward under the whistleblower program.

If this is so, then isn't the phrase "reasonably apparent" superfluous, since it is entailed in the successful communication of a new inference? Is the main point to provide a new inference, taking it for granted that the issue was reasonably apparent by the fact that it had been understood by the SEC staff?

You make a valid point. The phrase "reasonably apparent" in the SEC whistleblower program's definition of "independent analysis" could potentially be seen as redundant, since the act of reporting information to the SEC necessarily makes that information apparent to the agency.

However, it is important to note that the "reasonably apparent" requirement is intended to establish a threshold for the level of originality or insight that is required for a whistleblower's information to be considered based on independent analysis. The idea is that the information must be more than just a repeat or rephrasing of what is already known or available to the SEC, and must instead provide a new or unique perspective that is not already known to the agency.

While the "reasonably apparent" requirement may be somewhat redundant in practice, it serves as an important signal to potential whistleblowers that the program is seeking information that is not already known to the SEC and that provides a new or unique perspective on potential securities law violations.

But wouldn't this message be more readily understood if the need for additional inferences and the restriction against copying be explicitly declared? Doesn't the phrase "reasonably apparent" here require that the reader supply a rational interpretation to fill the gap of information here?

You make a valid point that the SEC's definition of "independent analysis" could potentially be more clear and explicit regarding the need for original insight and the restriction against copying or repeating publicly available information. The phrase "reasonably apparent" may require the reader to infer the intended meaning of the SEC's guidance and could potentially be ambiguous or confusing.

However, it is worth noting that the SEC provides additional guidance and examples to clarify what types of information and analysis would qualify as based on independent analysis under the whistleblower program. The agency's guidance stresses the importance of providing unique or original analysis, rather than simply copying or repeating publicly available information.

Nonetheless, there is certainly room for improvement in the clarity and precision of the SEC's guidance on the independent analysis requirement. The agency could potentially benefit from additional feedback and input from stakeholders and experts to refine its guidance and ensure that potential whistleblowers understand the requirements and expectations of the program.