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|
|Sep 19, 2011||2009019637001||Hearing Panel Decision Granting Enforcement's Motion for Summary Disposition in Department of Enforcement v. Thomas Thanh Doan||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 30, 2010||20090196759||NAC Redacted Membership Decision 20090196759||Membership Decision|
|Jul 18, 2014||2009019837302||APPEALED: Blair C. Mielke and Frederick W. Shultz||Disciplinary Decision|
|Sep 28, 2012||2009019837302||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Blair C. Mielke, Frederick W. Shultz, Thomas J. Gorter and Michael L. Trier||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 17, 2012||2009020081301||Amended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. William M. Somerindyke, Jr. and Respondent 2||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 8, 2014||2009020465801||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Keith D. Geary||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 20, 2016||2009020465801||APPEALED: Keith D. Geary||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 8, 2013||20090207019-01||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent.||Redacted Decision|
|Aug 7, 2015||20090208031-02||Paul Charles Dotson||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 30, 2014||2009020941801||APPEALED: Lek Securities Corporation and Samuel Frederik Lek||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 11, 2016||2009020941801||APPEALED: Lek Securities Corporation||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 12, 2013||20090209629-01||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Jason Blum||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 9, 2012||2010020846601||Order Granting Enforcement’s Motion to Offer Expert Testimony and Respondent’s Motion to Allow Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 27, 2016||2010020954501||APPEALED: Meyers Associates, L.P., Bruce Meyers, and Imtiaz A. Khan||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 4, 2018||2010020954501||Meyers Associates, L.P. (n/k/a Windsor Street Capital, L.P.) and Bruce Meyers||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 1, 2011||2010021196801||Order Regarding Respondent’s Motion to Stay||Disciplinary Order|
|Jul 21, 2014||2010021303301||North Woodward Financial Corp. and Douglas A. Troszak||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 29, 2012||2010021303301||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. North Woodward Financial Corp. and Douglas A. Troszak||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 9, 2012||20100214065-01||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Michael A. McIntyre||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 22, 2015||20100215720-01||eBX, LLC||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 19, 2015||20100215720-01||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Permission to Seek Additional Party Discovery||Disciplinary Order|
|May 20, 2014||2010021621201||Michael Pino||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 15, 2013||2010021621201||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Michael Pino||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 29, 2011||2010021627601||Amended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Timothy L. Pittman||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 30, 2011||2010021916601||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Joseph S. Amundsen||Disciplinary Decision|