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|
|Jul 21, 2011||200801201960||Rebecca Amy Reichman||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 7, 2016||2008011762801r||APPEALED: Mitchell H. Fillet||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 2, 2013||2008011762801||Mitchell H. Fillet||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 13, 2011||2008011762801||Amended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Mitchell Fillet||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 24, 2011||2008011725901||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Carlos Francisco Otalvaro||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 9, 2012||20080117243||Amended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Christopher Robert Ranni||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 30, 2011||2008011719501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Tina Newman||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 13, 2011||2008011701203||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Daniel James Gallagher and Vision Securities Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 12, 2012||2008011701203||Daniel James Gallagher||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 19, 2011||2008011684001||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|Dec 31, 2013||2008011675301||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Timothy B. Ruggiero||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 13, 2011||2007011937001||Howard Braff||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 19, 2010||2007011937001||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Howard Braff||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 11, 2011||2007011915401||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|Feb 24, 2012||2007011489301||Ryan A. Leopold||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 21, 2010||2007011489301||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Ryan A. Leopold||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 16, 2011||2007011413501||Order Denying Respondents’ Motion to Exclude Certain Portions of the Expert Report of HGF and to Preclude His Expert Testimony on the Issue of Suitability||Disciplinary Order|
|May 31, 2012||2007011413501||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Brookstone Securities, Inc., Antony Lee Turbeville, Christopher Dean Kline, and David William Locy||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 18, 2011||2007011413501||Order Denying the Respondents’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents; for Production of a List of Withheld Documents; and to Extend Deadlines and Hearing Dates||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 16, 2015||2007011413501||APPEALED: Brookstone Securities, Inc., Antony Lee Turbeville, Christopher Dean Kline and David William Locy||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 16, 2010||2007011250901||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Angela Dionne Reed||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 1, 2013||2007010902501||Jeffrey B. Pierce||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 30, 2012||2007010902501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Jeffrey B. Pierce||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 18, 2011||2007010580702||Order Granting Enforcement’s Motion Concerning the Testimony of MO, MB, and JF, and Denying the Respondent’s Motion to Exclude Their Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 18, 2011||2007010580702||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|