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.

Appeals Process

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. Titlesort ascending Type
Aug 18, 2006 E0220030845-01 Order Postponing Hearing Disciplinary Order
Oct 23, 2006 EAF0300770001 Order Permitting Expert Testimony Disciplinary Order
Oct 4, 2004 CAF030014 Order Partially Granting the Respondent's Motion to Reconsider Discovery Requests Disciplinary Order
Apr 12, 2006 CLG050021 Order Partially Granting the Complainant's Motion to Disqualify Expert Witness Disciplinary Order
Jul 30, 2007 20050000720-02 Order Overruling the Parties' Objections to Exhibits and Witnesses Disciplinary Order
Sep 15, 2006 ARB060023 Order Overruling Objection to Telephonic Hearing Disciplinary Order
Jul 7, 2003 CAF020053 Order on Respondent's Expert Witness Designation Disciplinary Order
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 19, 2005 CAF040058 Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Leave to Introduce Expert Testimony Disciplinary Order
Oct 15, 2003 C01020022 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