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|
|May 30, 2017||2014039839101||APPEALED: Jim Jinkook Seol||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 26, 2017||2011027666902||Merrimac Corporate Securities, Inc., and Robert G. Nash||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 17, 2017||2012035284301||APPEALED: Richard A. McCollam||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 16, 2017||SD-2103||Marc N. Jaffe as a General Securities Representative with Integrity Brokerage Services, Inc.||Statutory Disqualification, Denials|
|May 12, 2017||2012034936101||Jeffrey D. Noard||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 12, 2017||2013035130101||APPEALED: Cantone Research, Inc., Anthony Cantone, and Christine Cantone||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 3, 2017||2014043001601||APPEALED: Allen B. Holeman||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 21, 2017||2012032019101||Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Respondents’ Motion Pursuant to FINRA Rules 8210 and 9252.||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 11, 2017||2014042524301||Order Regarding Respondent’s Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 11, 2017||2014044985401||Order Granting Respondent’s Request for an Order of Production.||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 7, 2017||2015045601401||Katherine Ann White||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 7, 2017||2012035284301||Order Granting Enforcement’s Motion to Strike Respondent’s Post-Hearing Affidavit and Exhibits and Ordering Respondent to Resubmit Post-Hearing Brief.||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 23, 2017||2014040968501||APPEALED: Ahmed Gadelkareem||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 21, 2017||2013035865303||APPEALED: Spencer Edwards, Inc. and Gordon Dihle||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 21, 2017||2014038847602||Order Denying Motion to Quash and Requiring Respondent to Respond to Rule 8210 Requests No Later Than March 31, 2017.||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 21, 2017||2014038847602||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Compel Discovery.||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 21, 2017||2013035817701||Order 1) Granting Enforcement’s Motion For Leave to Permit Expert Testimony and 2) Amending Case Management and Scheduling Order Regarding Filing Exhibits.||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 17, 2017||2011029549201||Craig G. Langweiler||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 16, 2017||ARB160047||J. Thaddeus McGaffey||Expedited Decision|
|Mar 16, 2017||201504421601||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Leave to Present Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 16, 2017||2013035211801||APPEALED: David Adam Elgart||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 15, 2017||2010025087302||APPEALED: Thaddeus J. North||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 15, 2017||2009017440201||APPEALED: Louis Ottimo||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 13, 2017||2011027926301||Matthew Joseph Sheerin||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 8, 2017||2015044921601||Order Denying Respondent’s Discovery Motion.||Disciplinary Order|