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|
|Aug 6, 1999||C8B970010||District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 8, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|Aug 3, 1999||ARB990014||Non-Summary Suspension Proceeding ARB990014||Expedited Decision, Non-Summary Proceeding|
|Jul 29, 1999||CMS980108||Hearing Panel Decision||Redacted Decision|
|Jul 17, 1999||C8A990015||Hearing Panel Order Granting Respondent'sMotion for Leave to Introduce Expert Witness Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Jul 9, 1999||CMS960238||Michael B. Jawitz||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 8, 1999||C3A960033||Brian Prendergast||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 7, 1999||C3A960029||Kevin D. Kunz & Kunz & Cline Inc. Management, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 7, 1999||C8A990015||Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Complainant's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses||Disciplinary Order|
|Jul 6, 1999||C02980051||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Gordon Kerr||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 28, 1999||C8A970015||Kevin Lee Otto||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 28, 1999||CAF990007||Order Granting Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 25, 1999||CAF980022||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Coleman & Company Securities, Inc. and Aaron J. Yorke, IV||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 21, 1999||CAF980002||Order Denying Respondents' Motion to Compel Production of Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 18, 1999||CAF970011||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Monroe Parker Securities, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 18, 1999||C10980070||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. John J. Lee||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 15, 1999||C3A970031||Daniel S. Hellen||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 14, 1999||C10970176||Robert Fitzpatrick||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 10, 1999||CMS960194||J.C. Bradford & Co.||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jun 4, 1999||C3A950031||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 3 Complainant, vs. Respondent Firm 1 and Respondent 2||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|Jun 1, 1999||ARB980026||Non-Summary Suspension Proceeding ARB980026||Expedited Decision, Non-Summary Proceeding|
|Jun 1, 1999||ARB990008||Non-Summary Suspension Proceeding ARB990008||Expedited Decision, Non-Summary Proceeding|
|May 21, 1999||C3A980069||Amended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Michael A. Usher||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 19, 1999||C05990006||Order Dismissing Respondent for Lack of Jurisdiction||Redacted Decision|
|May 13, 1999||C07980027||Stuart G. Horowitz||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 13, 1999||C10960208||A.S. Goldmen & Co., Inc., Anthony J. Marchiano, Stuart E. Winkler, & Stacy Meyers||Disciplinary Decision|