1859 Operating, LLC; Centerfire Consulting, LLC; DMMD Marketing, Inc.; DM Sales Consulting, Inc.; The Slade Group, Inc.; Slade Marketing, Inc.; Adam Fieldsted; Dillon Murrow; Alison Slade; Dallin Slade; Duane Slade; and Mason Slade

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 26616 / August 21, 2026 Securities and Exchange Commission v. 1859 Operating, LLC; Centerfire Consulting, LLC; DMMD Marketing, Inc.; DM Sales Consulting, Inc.; The Slade Group, Inc.; Slade Marketing, Inc.; Adam Fieldsted; Dillon Murrow; Alison Slade; Dallin Slade; Duane Slade; and Mason Slade , Misc. Action No. 4:26-MC-00012 (N.D. Tex. filed Aug. 20, 2026) SEC Files Subpoena Enforcement Action Against Texas Oil Company, Five Affiliated Entities, and Six Related Individuals, in Connection with Investigation into Possible Fraudulent Securities Offering On August 20, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a subpoena enforcement action in United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking an order to compel 1859 Operating, LLC; Centerfire Consulting, LLC; DMMD Marketing, Inc.; DM Sales Consulting, Inc.; The Slade Group, Inc.; Slade Marketing, Inc.; and individuals Adam Fieldsted, Dillon Murrow, Alison Slade, Dallin Slade, Duane Slade, and Mason Slade (together, “the respondents”) to comply with outstanding SEC investigative subpoenas. According to the SEC’s application and supporting papers, the SEC issued the subpoenas beginning in April 2024, requiring the respondents to produce documents and provide sworn testimony in the investigation. According to the SEC’s filing, the subpoenas were issued to determine whether any persons or entities may have violated the antifraud or other provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with a potential offering fraud involving 1859’s offers and sales of fractional undivided working interests in oil leases, through which respondents have raised approximately $42.7 million. As described in the SEC’s application, despite extended deadlines, repeated communications, and multiple agreements to prioritize production, the respondents almost entirely failed to comply with subpoenas by the compliance deadlines. The application alleges that the respondents have produced approximately 8,344 documents out of a universe of what their counsel has stated includes potentially hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of responsive documents. The application further alleges that several respondents have failed to appear for testimony on dates previously agreed to or scheduled pursuant to SEC subpoenas and that on multiple occasions over the last 10 months, respondents’ counsel has unilaterally canceled testimony shortly before the testimony was scheduled to occur. The SEC’s application requests that the Court enter an order compelling the respondents to comply with the subpoenas. The SEC is continuing its fact‑finding investigation and, to date, has not concluded that any individual or entity has violated the federal securities laws. Resources <ul class="field

Opened at stage filed