In Stryker v. SEC, No. 13-4404-ag (2d Cir. Mar. 11, 2015), a whistleblower had provided information between 2004 and July 2009 to the SEC’s Enforcement Division regarding alleged wrongdoing by a corporation and an individual. The SEC opened an investigation in March 2009 and subsequently charged the corporation and the individual with violations of the securities laws. The action resulted in a $19 million settlement. In 2011, the whistleblower submitted an application for an award under Section 21F of the Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC denied the application on the basis that the information provided was not “original information” within the meaning of the statute and the implementing rules. The Dodd-Frank Act called for rules to be passed implementing its whistleblower reward provisions, but created a safe harbor for information provided after the effective date of the statute and before the promulgation of rules. The statute did not expressly address its applicability to information provided before the effective date. The SEC gave effect to the safe harbor in Rule 21F-9(d), which allows for a reward based on original information provided after the July 21, 2010 enactment of Dodd-Frank but before the effective date of the rules. The SEC subsequently adopted Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(iv), expressly limiting whistleblower awards to information provided for the first time after July 21, 2010. The whistle-blower contended that this rule was inconsistent with the statute. The court disagreed, finding that even if the statute was ambiguous, the SEC’s interpretation was entitled to deference.