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|
|Mar 16, 2007||C02050006||Order Requiring Counsel to File Notice of Representation or Withdrawal||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 1, 2006||E0220030845-01||Order Requiring Counsel to File Notice Pursuant to Rule 9142||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 10, 2006||E8A2004065102||Order Requiring Respondent to Supplement His Rule 9252 Request||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 9, 2004||C9B040033||Order Requiring Respondent to Supplement his Rule 9252 Requests||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 31, 2007||20070077587||Order Resolving Certain Pre-Hearing Motions||Disciplinary Order|
|Jun 11, 2007||E102003025201||Order Ruling on (1) Objections to Witnesses, (2) Motion to Substitute Exhibit, (3) Motions in Limine, and (4) Motions to Strike the Respondents' Affirmative Defenses||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 15, 2007||2005000316701||Order Ruling on Department of Enforcement's (1) Objections to Witnesses and Documents, (2) Motion to Partially Strike Respondents' Pre-Hearing Brief, (3) Motion in Limine, and (4) Motion for Ruling on the Admissibility of Documents and Business Records||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 28, 2004||CAF040020||Order Ruling On Pre-Hearing Motions||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 12, 2004||CAF040020||Order Ruling On Pre-Hearing Motions||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 16, 2007||2005000316701||Order Ruling on Respondents' Motions to Strike Department of Enforcement's Exhibits||Disciplinary Order|
|May 24, 2016||2014043020901||Order Ruling on Witness Objections||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 14, 2006||DFC060004||Order Setting a Pre-Hearing Conference||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 28, 2007||2005001305701||Order Setting Philadelphia, Pa as Venue for Disciplinary Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 12, 1998||C3A970074||Order Setting Second Pre-Hearing Conference||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 2, 1998||C04970029||Order Staying Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 19, 1997||C01970032||Order Striking Answer Filed on Behalf of and Directing the Department of Enforcement to Send a Second Notice of Complaint||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 3, 2006||E9B2003033501||Order Sustaining Complainant's Objections to Respondent's Expert Witness Designation and Report||Disciplinary Order|
|Nov 13, 2017||2013035345701||Order Sustaining Department of Enforcement’s Objection to Respondents’ Inclusion of Erin Vocke on their Proposed Witness List||Disciplinary Order|
|Oct 17, 2012||2010024320101||Order to Provide Verification in Support of Request for Continuance of Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 6, 2007||20070086505-01||Order to Show Cause||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 15, 1998||C10970163||Order to Show Cause||Disciplinary Order|
|Dec 19, 1997||C10970172||Order to Show Cause Why Respondents Should Not Be Held in Default to Appear at at Pre-Hearing Conference||Disciplinary Order|
|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|
|Apr 13, 1999||CMS980108||Order with Respect to Respondent's Motion to Compel Production of Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 23, 1998||C3B960004||Otto M. Bruun||Disciplinary Decision|