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|
|Oct 29, 1997||CMS960105||Order Denying Motion for Disqualification of Hearing Officer||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 14, 2000||CMS960174||Vincent M. Carrella||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 31, 2000||CMS960174||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Sever and Preclude||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 10, 1999||CMS960194||J.C. Bradford & Co.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 18, 2000||CMS960235||Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Thomas Anthony Crocamo, Carl DeFelice, Joseph Louis Ferrarese, Peter William Ferriso, Jr., Robert Scott Ranzman, Charles McMichael Simonds, & David Robert Slaine||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 9, 1999||CMS960238||Michael B. Jawitz||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 23, 1997||CMS960247||In the Matter of Market Regulation Committee, Complainant, vs. Respondent Firm 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|Mar 10, 1998||CMS970026||Final Pre-Hearing Conference Order, Order Granting Respondents' Motion to Adjourn the March 17, 1998 Hearing, Order Rejecting Respondents' Contested Offer of Settlement, and Order Denying the Department of Enforcement's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition||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|
|Aug 26, 1998||CMS970026||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Olde Discount Corporation and Todd Thomas Wodek||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 1, 2000||CMS970027||Jerome E. Rosen||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 15, 1997||CMS970028||Order Granting in Part Complainant's Motion to Exclude Witnesses and Amend Exhibit List||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 3, 1998||CMS970028||Hearing Panel Decision||Redacted Decision|
|Jul 29, 1999||CMS980108||Hearing Panel Decision||Redacted Decision|
|Apr 13, 1999||CMS980108||Order with Respect to Respondent's Motion to Compel Production of Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|Aug 21, 1998||CO5970035||Hearing Panel Decision||Redacted Decision|
|Dec 26, 2000||DFC000003||Rule 9530 Suspension Proceeding DFC000003||Expedited Decision, Rule 9530 Suspension Decisions|
|Oct 3, 2002||DFC020014||NASD Treasurer, Complainant, v. Respondent||Expedited Decision, Rule 9530 Suspension Decisions|
|Feb 21, 2003||DFC020018||Hearing Panel Decision in NASD Treasurer v. Respondent||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 28, 2004||DFC040005||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Suspension Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 5, 2006||DFC050011||Decision in NASD Treasurer v. Lee Fisher||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|Sep 14, 2006||DFC060004||Order Setting a Pre-Hearing Conference||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 18, 2015||DFC140002||Order Granting Complainant's Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request||Expedited Order|
|Mar 18, 2015||DFC140002||Order Granting Complainant’s Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 8, 2016||DFC160001||McBarron Capital, LLC||Expedited Decision|