Did the First Circuit lack subject-matter-jurisdiction to rule while an earlier-filed Sarbanes-Oxley matter with identical causes of action is not yet administratively-exhausted before the Department-of-Labor?

Questions Presented 1. Did the First Circuit lack subject matter jurisdiction to rule while an earlierfiled Sarbanes-Oxley matter with identical causes of action is not yet : administratively exhausted before the Department of Labor? 2. Must the Department of Labor comply with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 17 in response to a Petition for Review here including upon request by Petitioner that the Department of Labor submit the whole administrative record, so that current administrative activity and subject matter jurisdiction over the issues presented can be properly and fairly "determined? 3. Did the First Circuit err in mentioning an unrelated and materially breached agreement dated 2008 despite Sarbanes-Oxley Section 806’s non-waiver mandate and prior written agreements bar and not having subject matter jurisdiction over the issues raised because they are administratively active before the Department of Labor?