Liow v. Westrock Co.

U.S. Department of Labor 	Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001
IN THE MATTER OF:
SIEW YING LIOW, 	ARB CASE NO. 	2025-0081
COMPLAINANT, 	ALJ CASE NO. 	2019-SOX-00054
ALJ THERESA C. TIMLIN
v.
DATE: December 16, 2025
WESTROCK CO., formally known as
KapStone Paper and Packing Corp.,
RESPONDENT.
Appearances:
For the Complainant:
Allen A. Shoikhetbrod, Esq.; Tully Rinckey, PLLC; Latham, New York
For the Respondent:
Amit Bindra, Esq.; The Printz Law Firm, P.C.; Chicago, Illinois
Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and KIKO,
Administrative Appeals Judge
DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING
PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH PREJUDICE
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of Section 806 of
the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX).0F
1 Complainant Siew Ying Liow filed a complaint
alleging that Respondent Westrock Co. retaliated against her in violation of the
SOX.1F
2 On July 25, 2025, a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
1 	18 U.S.C. § 1514A, as implemented by 29 C.F.R. Part 1980 (2025).
2 	D. & O. at 1.

2
issued a Decision and Order (D. & O.) denying Complainant’s complaint.2F
3 On
August 8, 2025, Complainant timely appealed to the Administrative Review Board
(ARB or Board).
While the appeal was pending before the Board, Complainant filed a Notice of
Settlement; Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review (Motion), informing the Board
that the parties reached a settlement in this case.3F
4 Complainant requests the Board
to approve the Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release
(Agreement) and withdraw her Petition for Review with prejudice.4F
5 Complainant
attached a signed copy of the Agreement to the Motion.
The SOX’s implementing regulations provide that at any time after a party
has filed objections to the Assistant Secretary’s findings or order, the case may be
settled if the participating parties agree to a settlement and, if the Board has
accepted the case for review, the Board approves the settlement agreement.5F
6
As Respondent has not indicated any opposition to its terms, we deem the terms
of the parties’ Agreement unopposed and will review it in accordance with the
applicable regulations.
Review of the Agreement reveals that it encompasses the settlement of
matters under laws other than the SOX.6F
7 The Board’s authority over settlement
agreements is limited to statutes that are within the Board’s jurisdiction as defined
by the applicable delegation of authority.7F
8 Therefore, we have restricted our review
of the Agreement to ascertaining whether its terms fairly, adequately, and
reasonably8F
9 settle this SOX case over which we have jurisdiction.9F
10
3 	Id. at 42.
4 	Motion at 1.
5 	Id.
6 	29 C.F.R. § 1980.111(d)(2).
7 	Agreement at ¶3.
8 	Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of
Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board (Secretary’s discretionary review of ARB
decisions)), 85 Fed. Reg. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020); see Kolehmainen v. CS Auto HND, LLC, ARB
No. 2021-0027, ALJ No. 2020-SOX-00044, slip op. at 2 (ARB Sept. 27, 2021) (citing
Cunningham v. Livedeal, Inc., ARB No. 2011-0047, ALJ No. 2011-SOX-00004, slip op. at 2
(ARB Aug. 5, 2011)).
9 	Kolehmainen, ARB No. 2021-0027, slip op. at 2 (citing Cunningham, ARB No. 2011-
0047, slip op. at 2).
10 	The Agreement references a second matter before the Department of Labor.
Agreement at 1-2. The only matter pending before the Board is an appeal of the D. & O. in
ALJ Case No. 2019-SOX-00054. According to the Office of Administrative Law Judges’

3
The Agreement contains confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses.10F
11
The Board notes that the parties’ submissions, including the Agreement, become
part of the record of the case and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA).11F
12 FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose requested records unless they
are exempt from disclosure.12F
13 Department of Labor regulations provide specific
procedures for agency responses to FOIA requests and for appeals by requestors
from denials of such requests.13F
14 Additionally, if the confidentiality and non-
disparagement clauses were interpreted to preclude Complainant from
communicating with federal or state enforcement agencies concerning alleged
violations of law, it would violate public policy, as it would contain an unacceptable
“gag” provision.14F
15
The Agreement provides that Complainant is excused from the
confidentiality obligations “as may be required by subpoena, law or regulation.”15F
16
We construe these provisions as allowing Complainant, either voluntarily or
pursuant to an order or subpoena, to communicate with, or provide information to,
state and federal authorities about suspected violations of law involving
Respondent.16F
17
website, Complainant also filed a motion and settlement agreement in ALJ No. 2023-SOX-
00008. The motion was granted, and the settlement agreement was approved by ALJ Dan
Panagiotis. Liow v. Westrock Co., ALJ No. 2023-SOX-00008 (ALJ Dec. 1, 2025) (Decision
and Order Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Complaint).
11 	Agreement at ¶8, ¶12.
12 	5 U.S.C. § 552.
13 	Kolehmainen, ARB No. 2021-0027, slip op. at 2-3 (citing Anderson v. Schering Corp.,
ARB No. 2010-0070, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-00007, slip op. at 3 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011)).
14 	29 C.F.R. Part 70.
15 	Kolehmainen, ARB No. 2021-0027, slip op. at 3 (citing Johnson v. U.S. Bancorp/U.S.
Bank Nat’l Assoc., ARB Nos. 2013-0014, -0046, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-00037, slip op. at 3 (ARB
July 22, 2013)).
16 	Agreement at ¶8.
17 	Kolehmainen, ARB No. 2021-0027, slip op. at 3 (citing Pawlowski v. Hewlett-Packard
Co., ARB No. 1999-0089, ALJ No. 1997-TSC-00003, slip op. at 2 (ARB May 5, 2000)). The
Agreement also explicitly states that it does not prohibit, prevent, or otherwise restrict
Complainant from reporting any allegations of unlawful conduct by Respondent to
government agencies or officials and that Complainant may participate in proceedings with
appropriate agencies enforcing discrimination laws. See Agreement at ¶15.

4
The Agreement also provides that it shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Illinois.17F
18 We construe this “Governing Law and Venue” provision as not
limiting the authority of the Secretary of Labor, the ARB, and any federal court
with regard to any issue arising under SOX, which authority shall be governed in
all respects by the laws and regulations of the United States.18F
19
After careful review of the Agreement, the Board concludes that the
Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and does not contravene the public
interest. Accordingly, we APPROVE the Agreement and DISMISS the Petition for
Review with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
RANDEL K. JOHNSON
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
PHILIP G. KIKO
Administrative Appeals Judge
18 	Agreement at ¶20.
19 	Kolehmainen, ARB No. 2021-0027, slip op. at 3 (citing Anderson, ARB No. 2010-
0070, slip op. at 4).