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|
|Jan 10, 2006||E8A2004065102||Order Requiring Respondent to Supplement His Rule 9252 Request||Disciplinary Order|
|Jul 6, 2009||E8A2004072203||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Jonathan M. Skiba||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 23, 2010||E8A2004072203||Jonathan M. Skiba||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 28, 2006||E8A2004095901||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Jason A. Craig||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 27, 2007||E8A2004095901||Jason A. Craig||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 31, 2007||E8A20041203102||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Michelle M. Mayo||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 10, 2008||E8A2005014902||North Woodward Financial Corp. and Douglas A. Troszak||Disciplinary Decision|
|Nov 30, 2007||E8A2005014902||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. North Woodward Financial Corp. and Douglas A. Troszak||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 12, 2006||E8A20050252||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. CMG Institutional Trading, LLC and Shawn D. Baldwin||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 20, 2008||E8A20050252||CMG Institutional Trading, LLC and Shawn D. Baldwin||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 24, 2009||E9A2002010501||Kevin M. Glodek||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 27, 2007||E9A2004001901||Douglas J. Toth||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 9, 2006||E9A2004001901||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Douglas J. Toth||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 10, 2007||E9A2004001901||Douglas J. Toth||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 12, 2007||E9A2004048801||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Brian J. Kelly||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 16, 2008||E9A2004048801||Brian J. Kelly||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 24, 2007||E9B2002010501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Kevin M. Glodek||Disciplinary Decision|
|Oct 20, 2006||E9B2002055601||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|Mar 20, 2007||E9B2003026301||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Timothy Behany, Edward M. VanGrouw, and Carl Martin Trevisan||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 30, 2008||E9B2003026301||Carl Martin Trevisan||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 11, 2006||E9B2003033501||Order Denying In Part and Granting In Part Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 3, 2006||E9B2003033501||Order Sustaining Complainant's Objections to Respondent's Expert Witness Designation and Report||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 9, 2006||E9B2003033501||Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Issuance Of Rule 8210 Requests for Information||Disciplinary Order|
|Jul 30, 2009||E9B2003033701||Keith Howard Medeck||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 11, 2010||E9B2003033701||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|