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|
|Apr 14, 2000||CMS960174||Vincent M. Carrella||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 10, 2000||C01990002||Bernard San Juan Rondez||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 6, 2000||C07960105||Wayne B. Vaughan||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 4, 2000||C0500006||Order Granting in Part Respondent Motion for More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 28, 2000||C1000010||Order Granting Enforcement's Motion for Leave to Withhold From Production Certain Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 27, 2000||C10970176||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert FitzPatrick||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 26, 2000||CAF980002||Order Regarding Respondents' Motion to Preclude Designation of Transcripts; Respondents' Motion for a Protective Order; and Enforcement's Motion for Post-Hearing Submissions in Excess of Twenty-Five Pages||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 19, 2000||C10990014||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Stephen Earl Prout||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 10, 2000||C02980085||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert Tretiak||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 10, 2000||C3A990067||Order Denying Respondent Second Motion for More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 9, 2000||C3A990031||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Charles W. Testino||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 9, 2000||C8A990032||Order Vacating Default Against Respondent, Granting Complainant Leave to Re-Serve the Complaint, and Setting a Briefing Schedule on the Issue of Jurisdiction||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 6, 2000||C8B990036||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Samuel Wereb||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 6, 2000||C02990042||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert Tretiak||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 1, 2000||C05990026||Order Rejecting Contested Offer of Settlement||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 17, 2000||C10990024||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Averell Golub||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 16, 2000||C02980024||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert Joseph Kernweis, William Pohn Willis, Arnold Hinsdale Kraus, and Keith Allen Dieterich||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 11, 2000||CAF980031||Hearing Panel Decision as to Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|Feb 8, 2000||C02990034||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. I.C. Rideau, Lyons, & Co., Inc., Lamar A. Lyons, Sr., and Joyce A. Green||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 7, 2000||CMS950041||In the Matter of Market Regulation Committee, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1 and Respondent Firm 2||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|Jan 31, 2000||C9A990007||Order Granting Motion for Order Permitting Certain Witnesses to Have Counsel Present||Disciplinary Order|
|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|
|Jan 18, 2000||C02990052||Order Granting Enforcement's Motion for Leave to Offer Telephone Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 13, 2000||C02990017||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Dennis Frank Riggi||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 13, 2000||C3A990050||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Jim Newcomb||Disciplinary Decision|