UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 99857 / March 26, 2024

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-21841

In the Matter of the Application of

AHMED MOHIDIN, CPA, and GEORGE WEINBAUM, CPA

For Review of Action Taken by the

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL BRIEFS

Ahmed Mohidin, CPA, and George Weinbaum, CPA (together, “Applicants”), each filed 

an application under Section 107 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for review of action taken 

by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”).

1

 Pursuant to Section 105(e)

of that Act, such an application for review operates as a stay of the disciplinary action imposed 

by the PCAOB.2

 On March 1, 2024, the PCAOB moved to lift the stay under Section 105(e) and 

Rule of Practice 401(e), so that the disciplinary action may take effect before the Commission 

resolves the appeals.

3

 Neither Mohidin nor Weinbaum has responded to the PCAOB’s motion.

In its motion, the PCAOB asserts that the same considerations should apply to a motion 

to lift the stay under Rule 401(e) as those that apply to a motion to stay a self-regulatory 

organization’s (“SRO”) disciplinary action under Rule 401(d).4 When considering whether to 

stay an SRO disciplinary action under Rule 401(d), the Commission has considered whether 

1 15 U.S.C. § 7217(c)(2).

2 15 U.S.C. § 7215(e)(1).

3 See 15 U.S.C. § 7215(e)(1); Rule of Practice 401(e)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 201.401(e)(1); cf. S. 

Brent Farhang, CPA, Exchange Act Release No. 83494, 2018 WL 3193859, at *11 (June 21, 

2018) (terminating automatic stay when sustaining PCAOB’s underlying disciplinary action).

4 Compare Rule of Practice 401(e)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 201.401(e)(1) (providing that “[a]ny 

person aggrieved by a stay of action” by the PCAOB “may make a motion to lift the stay”), with

Rule of Practice 401(d)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 201.401(d)(1) (providing that “any person aggrieved” by 

an action of an SRO may file a “motion for a stay” of the action).
2

there is a strong likelihood that the applicant will succeed on the merits of the appeal; whether 

the applicant will suffer irreparable harm without a stay; whether the public or another party will 

suffer substantial harm as a result of a stay; and whether a stay will serve the public interest.5 

Although, in a prior unpublished order, the Commission once identified the same factors as 

relevant to resolving a motion to lift a stay of a PCAOB disciplinary action under Rule 401(e),

6

that order did not explain why it did so. Instead, the order merely stated: “It appears appropriate 

to consider the motion, as the [PCAOB] argues, based on the factors the Commission previously 

has considered in evaluating similar requests for stays in connection with self-regulatory 

organization proceedings.”

We would benefit from supplemental briefing on the appropriate legal standard for lifting 

the stay. Notwithstanding the statement in our prior opinion, it would be particularly helpful for 

the parties to address whether the factors relevant to consideration of SRO stay motions should

also govern in this context. In particular, the parties should address whether extending the Rule 

401(d) (SRO) standard to the Rule 401(e) (PCAOB) context would be appropriate given 

Congress’s express determination that applications for review of PCAOB disciplinary actions 

should automatically operate as a stay, but applications for review of SRO decisions should not.

7

 

The parties should also address whether application of the Rule 401(d) standard here would 

appropriately allocate the burden of proof and persuasion, given that the PCAOB—not 

Applicants—has moved to lift the statutorily imposed stay.8

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the PCAOB shall file a supplemental brief on the 

above issues, including the appropriate standard to apply to its motion to lift the stay, by April 9, 

2024. Applicants shall file briefs in opposition to the PCAOB’s motion and supplemental brief

by April 23, 2024, and any reply brief shall be filed by April 30, 2024. 

5 See Scottsdale Cap. Advisors Corp., Exchange Act Release No. 83783, 2018 WL 

3738189, at *2 (Aug. 6, 2018).

6 See Davis Acct. Grp., P.C., Corrected Order Partially Lifting Stay at 2–3, Admin. Proc. 

File No. 3-14370 (June 14, 2011).

7 Compare 15 U.S.C. § 7215(e)(1) (providing that an application for review “shall operate 

as a stay” of disciplinary action by the PCAOB), with 15 U.S.C. § 78s(d)(2) (providing that an 

application for review of disciplinary action by an SRO “shall not operate as a stay”) (emphasis 

added).

8 See generally 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) (providing that , “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by 

statute, the proponent of a[n] . . . order has the burden of proof”).; see also Dir., Office of 

Workers’ Comp. Programs, Dep’t of Lab. v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 276 (“[W]e 

understand the APA’s unadorned reference to ‘burden of proof’ to refer to the burden of 

persuasion.”).
3 

The parties’ attention is directed to Rule of Practice 154 regarding motions.9 Attention is 

further directed to the e-filing requirements in the Rules of Practice.

10 And we remind the 

parties that any document filed with the Commission must also be served upon all participants in 

this proceeding and be accompanied by a certificate of service.11

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority. 

 Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

9

 See Rule of Practice 154, 17 C.F.R. § 201.154. 

10 See Rules of Practice 151, 152(a), 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.151, .152(a) (providing procedure for 

filing papers with the Commission and mandating electronic filing in the form and manner 

posted on the Commission’s website); Instructions for Electronic Filing and Service of 

Documents in SEC Administrative Proceedings and Technical Specifications, 

https://www.sec.gov/efapdocs/instructions.pdf. Parties generally also must certify that they have 

redacted or omitted sensitive personal information from any filing. Rule of Practice 151(e), 

17 C.F.R. § 201.151(e). 

11 See Rule of Practice 150, 17 C.F.R. § 201.150 (requiring parties generally to serve each 

other with their filings); Rule of Practice 151(d), 17 C.F.R. § 201.151(d) (“Papers filed with the 

Commission . . . shall be accompanied by a certificate stating the name of the person or persons 

served, the date of service, the method of service, and the mailing address or email address to 

which service was made, if not made in person.”).