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|
|Aug 19, 2005||CMS040165||Order on Remand From the National Adjudicatory Council Granting Complinant's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 8, 2011||2007010398802||Order on Enforcement’s Objections to Respondent’s Proposed Exhibit List and Motion In Limine in Part||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 20, 2006||C05050015||Order Number 06-14 (C05050015)Order Following Final Pre-Hearing Conference and Rulings on Motions in Limine||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 8, 2010||200500224102||Order Limiting the Dissemination of Personal, Confidential Information||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 31, 2006||C3A030008||Order Holding Respondent In Default and In Contempt, and Directing Complainant to File a Motion for Entry of Default Decision||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 28, 2016||2014042690502||Order Granting, in Part, Respondents' Motion Requesting Issuance of FINRA Rule 8210 Requests.||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 1, 2014||2011025676501||Order Granting, In Part, Motion for More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 22, 2015||201203564701||Order Granting, in Part, Enforcement's Motion for Leave to Offer Telephone Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 13, 2006||CLI050016||Order Granting, In Part, Complainant's Motion to Preclude and Denying Respondent's Motion to Limit Complainant's Evidence||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 30, 2014||20080148227-02||Order Granting, in Part, and Denying in Part, Respondents 1, 4, 2’s Motions for More Definite Statement and Denying Respondent 3’s Motion for More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 22, 2007||E8A2002109804||Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Telephone Testimony and Deferring Ruling on Respondent's Objection to Enforcement's Proposed Exhibit CX-7||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 15, 2006||E0220030425-01||Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Leave to Introduce Testimony of Handwriting Experts and Denying Respondent's Motion to Introduce Testimony of a Polygraph Examiner||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 15, 2003||C01020022||Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Leave to Introduce Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 19, 2005||CAF040058||Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Leave to Introduce Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 22, 1998||CMS970026||Order Granting the Department of Enforcement's Motion for Telephone Testimony, Denying Respondents' Motion for Use of an Expert Witness and Denying Respondents' Motion to Compel Production of Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 6, 2003||CAF020041||Order Granting the Department of Enforcement's Motion for a Protective Order||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 11, 2017||2014044985401||Order Granting Respondent’s Request for an Order of Production.||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 21, 2015||20080148227-02||Order Granting Respondents’ Preclusion Motion||Disciplinary Order|
|Jul 30, 2004||C9B040013||Order Granting Respondents' Motion to Introduce Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 14, 1999||CAF980002||Order Granting Respondents' Motion to Compel Production of Rule 8210 Request, and Denying Respondents' Motion to Compel Production of Personnel File and to Preclude Enforcement's Exhibits||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 28, 1999||CAF990007||Order Granting Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration||Disciplinary Order|
|May 6, 1998||C10970141||Order Granting Respondents' "Objection to Rule 8210 Requests" and Denying Motion of Respondents to File Reply Memorandum||Disciplinary Order|
|Aug 28, 2000||C3A990071||Order Granting Respondents Motion in Limine Requesting Production of Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 4, 2004||C9B040036||Order Granting Respondents Rule 9261(C) Request||Disciplinary Order|
|May 11, 2001||C05010012||Order Granting Respondent's Request for Production of Documents Pursuant to NASD Procedural Rule 9252||Disciplinary Order|