FC-REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT NUMBER OF PAGES 2 JUDGE HENLEY ORDER OF DISMISSAL — 2026SOX00050

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
Washington, DC
______________
Issue Date: 13 October 2026
OALJ Case No: 2026-SOX-00050
OSHA Case No.: 301060850
In the Matter of:
DUANE PENFOLD,
Complainant,
v.
PRIME EXECUTIONS INC.
d/b/a FREEDOM CAPITAL MARKETS and
FREEDOM HOLDING CORPORATION,
Respondents.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On or about September 4, 2025, Complainant filed a complaint with the
Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
alleging Respondent violated the employee protection provisions of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, and the implementing regulations at 29
C.F.R. Part 1980.
By letter dated May 22, 2026, OSHA dismissed the complaint. Complainant,
through counsel, objected to the dismissal and requested a hearing before the Office
of Administrative Law Judges (“OALJ”), which docketed the case on June 18, 2026.
It is not yet scheduled for hearing.
On October 8, 2026, Complainant, through counsel, advised the tribunal that
he exercised his right to pursue his claim in federal district court, in accordance
with 29 C.F.R. § 1980.114,1 and attached a copy of a complaint filed in the United
1 Under the enforcement provisions of SOX, if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final decision
within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, and if the delay is not due to the bad faith of the
employee, the employee may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate
district court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action without regard
to the amount in controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(B). In this matter, more than 180 days has
passed since Complainant filed his complaint with OSHA, there is no indication of bad faith, and
Complainant filed his action in federal district court before the Secretary issued a final decision. 29
C.F.R. § 1980.114(a).

- 2 -
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 7, 2026.2
The United States District Court has assumed jurisdiction of this matter.3
Accordingly, consistent with the regulations, the above-captioned matter is
hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED:
STEPHEN R. HENLEY
Chief Administrative Law Judge
2 Case No. 1:26-cv-08861.
3 See Stone v. Duke Energy Corp, 432 F.3d 320, 322-23 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that, once a
complainant filed a Sarbanes-Oxley complaint in federal district court, the district court assumed
jurisdiction from the administrative law judge).