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 16, 2007||2005000316701||Order Ruling on Respondents' Motions to Strike Department of Enforcement's Exhibits||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 7, 2007||2005000316701||Order Granting Motion to Compel or Alternatively to Preclude Oral or Documentary Evidence||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 16, 2006||2005000316701||Order (1) Granting Complainant's Motion in Limine; (2) Denying Complainant's Motion to Sequester Witnesses, Without Prejudice; (3) Denying Respondents' Motions to Dismiss; (4) Denying Respondents' Motion to Strike; (5) Granting, in Part, Respondents' Motion To Preclude; (6) Denying, in Part, and Deferring, in Part, Respondents' Motion For Leave to Present Expert Testimony and (7) Denying Respondents' Motion for Leave to File a Compilation of Motions, Briefs and Rulings||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 9, 2006||2005000316701||Order Denying Respondents' Request That the Deputy Chief Hearing Officer Not Exercise Authority Pursuant to Rule 9235(b)||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 26, 2007||2005000323905||Order Denying Motion (1) to Reassign, (2) for Additional Information Regarding Panelists, (3) to Permit Discovery and (4) for a Delay in the Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|May 29, 2008||2005000323905||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation v. Stephen Ira Golden and Richard F. Kresge||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 9, 2007||2005000323905||Order Regarding Respondent 2's Motions for Official Notice||Disciplinary Order|
|Jul 2, 2007||2005000323905||Order Denying Respondent 1's Motion for a More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 2, 2009||2005000324301||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation v. Jerry William Burch||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 28, 2011||2005000324301||Jerry William Burch||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 27, 2007||2005000440701||Order Regarding Pre-Hearing Motions||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 12, 2006||2005000631501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Bryan L. Claggett||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 4, 2012||20050007427||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. David Lerner Associates, Inc. and William Mason||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 6, 2010||20050007427||Respondent Firm and Respondent 2||Disciplinary Order|
|May 8, 2009||2005000835801||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Harry Friedman and Joseph Schnaier||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 26, 2010||2005000835801||Harry Friedman||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 12, 2009||2005000879302||Amended Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Legacy Trading Co., LLC and Mark Uselton||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 8, 2010||2005000879302||Legacy Trading Co., LLC and Mark Alan Uselton||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 2, 2007||2005000960801||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Mangri Mohini Harlal||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 10, 2008||2005001085001||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Warren K. Hansen||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 5, 2007||2005001305701||Order Denying the Respondents' Motion for a More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 20, 2007||2005001305701||Order Denying Respondents' Three Discovery Motions||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 28, 2007||2005001305701||Order Setting Philadelphia, Pa as Venue for Disciplinary Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 6, 2008||2005001305701||Harvest Capital Investments, LLC and Dennis Cotto||Disciplinary Decision|
|Sep 27, 2007||2005001305701||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Harvest Capital Investments, LLC and Dennis Cotto||Disciplinary Decision|