Background
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Thomas G. Bellwoar, Jr., : Petitioner : : No. 235 M.D. 2025 v. : : Submitted: June 16, 2026 Pennsylvania Department of Banking : and Securities Commission, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE LORI A. TSAI, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE DUMAS FILED: July 21, 2026 Thomas G. Bellwoar, Jr. (Bellwoar) has filed an amended petition for review (Amended PFR) in our original jurisdiction, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities Commission (Commission) on the basis that the Commission allegedly violated the Sunshine Act1 when conducting a public meeting in May 2025. Currently before us are preliminary objections filed by the Commission. Upon review, we overrule the preliminary objections in part and sustain them in part. 1 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 701-716. BACKGROUND2 On May 29, 2025, the Commission held its regularly scheduled quarterly meeting. After some initial formalities, the Commission opened the floor to public comments but was informed by the Commission’s deputy chief counsel that none would be forthcoming, because no one had sought advance permission to do so, as well as because no members of the general public were currently at the meeting. A lawyer, Michael Lowe (Lowe), then appeared and sought to make a comment regarding the proceedings.
BACKGROUND2 On May 29, 2025, the Commission held its regularly scheduled quarterly meeting. After some initial formalities, the Commission opened the floor to public comments but was informed by the Commission’s deputy chief counsel that none would be forthcoming, because no one had sought advance permission to do so, as well as because no members of the general public were currently at the meeting. A lawyer, Michael Lowe (Lowe), then appeared and sought to make a comment regarding the proceedings. The Commission’s counsel denied this request, because Lowe had failed in advance to notify the Commission of his intention to do so, as well as because counsel believed Lowe would actually be offering oral argument, rather than public comment, as Lowe was representing several parties at the hearing.3 Thereafter, the Commission proceeded through the matters listed on the meeting agenda. During the course of discussing two of those matters,4 Department of Banking and Securities (Department) attorneys announced that the Commission would be entering a non-public executive session, pursuant to Section 708(a)(4) and (a)(5) of the Sunshine Act;5 in each situation, the Commission subsequently returned 2 We draw this section’s substance largely from the factual averments Bellwoar made in his Amended PFR. PFR. 3 Spcifically, Lowe represented the respondents in Commission Docket No. 240032, the names of which are listed infra in footnote 4. B at 33-34. 4 These matters were, respectively, an executive session for a litigation update and discussion of Ethos Capital Management, Inc.
The Court’s Holding
CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing analysis, we overrule the Commission’s preliminary objection to Bellwoar’s standing. See Press-Enter., Inc., 604 A.2d at 1223 ; 65 Pa.C.S. § 715. Additionally, we overrule the preliminary objection asserting misjoinder of the Commission’s individual commissioners as respondents to this action. See Piehl, 930 A.2d at 617 ; Stedman, 221 A.3d at 759. We also overrule in part the Commission’s demurrer to Count IV, to the extent that Bellwoar asserts therein that the Commission violated Section 708(c) of the Sunshine Act by entering into “sham” executive sessions during the course of its May 29, 2025 meeting. See generally Torres, 997 A.2d at 1245 . In addition, we otherwise sustain the Commission’s demurrers, dismiss with prejudice Counts I through III, V, and VI of the Amended PFR in full, and dismiss in part Count IV with prejudice, to the extent that Bellwoar asserts therein that the Commission 14 violated Section 708(a)(4) of the Sunshine Act by entering into “sham” executive sessions during the course of its May 29, 2025 meeting. Finally, we direct Bellwoar to amend this matter’s caption within 30 days, so that it properly identifies each individual commissioner as a respondent. DUMAS, Judge 15 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Thomas G. Bellwoar, Jr., : Petitioner : : No. 235 M.D. 2025 v. : : Pennsylvania Department of Banking : and Securities Commission, : Respondent : ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2026, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The preliminary objections filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities Commission (Commission) regarding Thomas G.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing analysis, we overrule the Commission’s preliminary objection to Bellwoar’s standing.
- See Press-Enter., Inc., 604 A.2d at 1223 ; 65 Pa.C.S. § 715.
- Additionally, we overrule the preliminary objection asserting misjoinder of the Commission’s individual commissioners as respondents to this action.
Why It Matters
Court issues a substantive appellate ruling Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.