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|
|Jan 27, 1998||C3A970067||Order Granting Department of Enforcement's Motion for Telephone Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 29, 1998||CAF970011||Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Recusal of Hearing Officer||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 29, 1998||CAF970011||Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Complainant and Hearing Panelists||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 2, 1998||C04970029||Order Staying Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 3, 1998||CMS960085||James T. Patten & Greater Metropolitan Investment Services, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 5, 1998||CAF970002||Order Regarding Severance||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 17, 1998||C9B970016||Order Regarding Production Under Rule 9251||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 19, 1998||C07930034||Escalator Securities, Inc., & Howard A. Scala||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 25, 1998||C10970033||Order Directing Written Submissions in Place of Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 25, 1998||CAF970002||Order Regarding Motion of Respondents and Enforcement's Motion to Strike||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 27, 1998||CMS950110||La Jolla Capital Corp. & Harold Bailey Gallison, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 6, 1998||C02970007||Aaron Eugene Granath||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 6, 1998||C07960085||Adam S. Levy||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 10, 1998||CMS970026||Final Pre-Hearing Conference Order, Order Granting Respondents' Motion to Adjourn the March 17, 1998 Hearing, Order Rejecting Respondents' Contested Offer of Settlement, and Order Denying the Department of Enforcement's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 10, 1998||C05970035||Order Granting in Part Motion of Complainant to Exclude Respondents' Expert Witness and Certain Other Witnesses||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 12, 1998||C3A960040||Cindy M. Goldberg||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 19, 1998||C07970055||Hearing Panel Decision||Redacted Decision|
|Mar 22, 1998||C8A960040||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 8, Complainant, vs. Respondent Firm 1, and Respondent 2||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|Mar 22, 1998||C8A960040||Podesta & Co. & Carol P. Foley||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 6, 1998||C10970141||Order Granting Respondents' "Objection to Rule 8210 Requests" and Denying Motion of Respondents to File Reply Memorandum||Disciplinary Order|
|May 13, 1998||C3A960040||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee for District No. 3, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|May 14, 1998||C9B970016||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Edward Golick||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 14, 1998||C10970033||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Reynold Bradford Kern||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 18, 1998||CAF970002||Order Denying Motions for Production of Documents Pursuant to Rule 9252||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 3, 1998||CMS970028||Hearing Panel Decision||Redacted Decision|