Adjudication and Decisions
When FINRA determines that violations of securities rules have occurred and formal disciplinary action is necessary, the Enforcement Department or Market Regulation Department files a complaint with the Office of Hearing Officers (OHO).
The Office arranges a three-person panel to hear the case. The panel is chaired by a hearing officer who is an employee of the Office of Hearing Officers. The Chief Hearing Officer appoints two industry panelists, drawn primarily from a pool of current and former securities industry members of FINRA's District Committees, as well as its Market Regulation Committee, former members of FINRA's National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) and former FINRA Governors.
At the hearing, the parties present evidence for the panel to determine whether a firm or individual has engaged in conduct that violates FINRA rules, SEC regulations or federal securities laws. In reaching its decision, the hearing panel also considers previous court, SEC, and NAC decisions to determine if violations occurred. The NAC is the national committee which reviews initial decisions rendered in FINRA disciplinary and membership proceedings.
For each case, the hearing panel will issue a written decision explaining the reasons for its ruling and consult the FINRA Sanction Guidelines to determine the appropriate sanctions if violations have occurred. FINRA also, when feasible and appropriate, can order firms and individuals to make restitution to harmed customers.
Under FINRA's disciplinary procedures, a firm or individual has the right to appeal a hearing panel decision to the NAC, or the NAC may on its own initiate a review of a decision. On appeal, the NAC will determine if a hearing panel's findings were legally correct, factually supported and consistent with FINRA's Sanction Guidelines. While a panel decision is on appeal, the sanction is not enforced against the firm or individual.
Unless FINRA's Board of Governors decides to review the NAC's appellate decision, that decision represents FINRA's final action. A firm or individual can appeal FINRA's decision to the SEC and then to federal court.
|Date of Decision||Proceeding No.||Title||Type|
|Feb 7, 2017||2014042291901||Order Denying Respondents’ Motion for Summary Disposition.||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 30, 2017||2013037401001||Sua Sponte Order Striking Portions of Respondent’s Answer and Precluding Immaterial and Impertinent Evidence||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 26, 2017||2012030738501||APPEALED: J.W. Korth and Company||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 13, 2017||2013036799501||J. Michael Casas||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 13, 2017||2011026346206||Jaoshiang Luo||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 11, 2017||2013037097602||Jeffery A. Vaughn||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 10, 2017||2012033362101||Thomas Edmund Connors||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 6, 2017||2012030724101||Fox Financial Management Corporation, Brian A. Murphy, James E. Rooney, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 4, 2017||2014041319201||Miguel Ortiz||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 16, 2016||2014040876001||APPEALED: Kenneth J. Mathieson||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 14, 2016||2015044823501||Order Denying Respondent Beyn’s Motion for Additional Discovery.||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 14, 2016||2012033832501||APPEALED: Matthew D. Rubin||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 13, 2016||2014040501801||Texas E&P Partners, Inc., F/K/A Chestnut Exploration Partners, Inc., F/K/A Chestnut Energy Partners, Inc. and Mark A. Plummer||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 12, 2016||2013036653301||Vincent Au||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 8, 2016||DFC160001||McBarron Capital, LLC||Expedited Decision|
|Dec 1, 2016||ARB160019||Michael David Schwartz||Expedited Decision|
|Nov 30, 2016||2013037575801||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Compel.||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 28, 2016||2013038770901||Ricky R. Moore||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 23, 2016||20080148227-02||Order Deferring Ruling on Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings.||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 18, 2016||ARB160035||Keith Patrick Sequeira||Expedited Decision|
|Nov 14, 2016||2014040476901||Order Denying Respondents’ Motion Under Rule 9252 For Issuance of Requests for Documents and Information.||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 11, 2016||2013035533701||APPEALED: Meyers Associates, L.P.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 4, 2016||2014039839101||Order Granting Enforcement’s Motion for Partial Summary Disposition.||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 4, 2016||2013038986001||APPEALED: Richard A. Riemer, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 31, 2016||2014042524301||Order Regarding Respondent’s Motions to Stay Case Management and Scheduling Order and to Strike and/or For a More Definite Statement.||Disciplinary Order|