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|
|Dec 2, 1999||CAF980013||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Herman Epstein||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 1, 1999||C11970032||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Daniel Richard Howard||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 22, 1999||C10990058||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Phillip J. Milligan||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 19, 1999||C8A990017||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. David L. Foran||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 18, 1999||C8A990015||Hearing Panel Decision||Redacted Decision|
|Nov 12, 1999||C9A980021||Robert J. Kendzierski||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 9, 1999||C9B960013||Steven D. Goodman||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 4, 1999||C8A980054||Sylvester Cannon, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 3, 1999||C02980025||Roger Harry Chlowitz||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 3, 1999||C04970050||Ansula Pet Hwa Liu||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 3, 1999||C02970018||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 2, Complainant, vs. Respondent||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|Oct 31, 1999||CAF980025||Richard Stephen Levitov & Ralph Joseph Angeline||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 18, 1999||C07990013||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Alberto E. Argomaniz||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 18, 1999||CMS920002||Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceedings and to Vacate Current Scheduling Order||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 18, 1999||C07980011||Mark S. Balbirer||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 6, 1999||DFC990003||Rule 9530 Suspension Proceeding DFC990003||Expedited Decision, Rule 9530 Suspension Decisions|
|Sep 30, 1999||CMS920002||Order Directing Complainant to Comply with Rule 9251||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 27, 1999||C02990022||Order Denying Respondent's Request for Financial Assistance to Attend Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 27, 1999||CAF980002||Order Denying Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Invocation of Rule 8210 Pursuant to Rule 9252||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 23, 1999||C02980034||Order Denying Motion for Entry Of Default Decision Against Respondent and Granting Enforcement Leave to Re-Serve the Complaint||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 21, 1999||CAF980002||Order Regarding Court Reporting Services for the Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 17, 1999||C3A980077||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Richard F. Dambakly||Disciplinary Decision|
|Sep 1, 1999||C02980073||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. McLaughlin, Piven, Vogel Securities, Inc. and James Cecil McLaughlin||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 27, 1999||C02980024||Order Granting Complainant's Motion to Strike||Disciplinary Order|
|Aug 20, 1999||C01970028||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 1, Complainant, vs. Respondent Firm 1 and Respondent 2||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|