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 24, 2016||SD-MCDC-054 et al||D.A. Davidson & Co., T.D. Securities (USA) LLC, Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc.||Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|Mar 24, 2016||SD-MCDC-059 et al||Barclays Capital Inc., Hilltop Securities, Inc., Jefferies LLC||Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|Mar 23, 2016||2010024522103||APPEALED: Brett Ian Friedberg||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 18, 2016||2012034719701||APPEALED: Paul E. Taboada||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 11, 2016||2013038418201||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Compel Member Firm to Produce Additional Documents.||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 10, 2016||2012031496501||Order Denying Respondents’ Motion for Partial Summary Disposition.||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 7, 2016||2008011762801r||APPEALED: Mitchell H. Fillet||Disciplinary Decision|
|Mar 4, 2016||2014040501801||Order Denying Respondents’ Motion for Summary Disposition||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 4, 2016||2013036836801||Order Denying Respondent’s Rule 9252 Request||Disciplinary Order|
|Mar 3, 2016||2014040968501||Omnibus Order on Pre-Hearing Motions||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 29, 2016||2012034936005||APPEALED: David Joseph Escarcega||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 29, 2016||2014043020901||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion Pursuant to FINRA Rule 9252 and Granting Respondent Leave to Supplement||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 26, 2016||2014041724601||Order Denying Respondents’ Motions 1) For Summary Disposition and 2) To Disqualify Enforcement Counsel||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 25, 2016||2014043020901||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 22, 2016||2014040501801||Order Denying Motion for Permission to Present Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 18, 2016||FPI150009||Gary James Lundgren||Expedited Decision, Non-Summary Proceeding|
|Feb 16, 2016||20080148227-02||Order Denying Respondents’ Preclusion Motion||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 12, 2016||2013036678201||Tracy Chen||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 3, 2016||2012033393401||Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Respondent’s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of KA, BS, and MC.||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 29, 2016||2014040295201||Order Denying Respondents’ Motion for Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 28, 2016||2015044379701||Order Denying Motion to Dismiss||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 20, 2016||2015044960501||Order Denying Motion to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence, dated January 20, 2016.||Disciplinary Order|
|Jan 15, 2016||2012033362101||APPEALED: Thomas Edmund Connors||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 29, 2015||2011029619301||APPEALED: Kenny Akindemowo||Disciplinary Decision|
|Dec 22, 2015||2010025350001||Roric E. Griffith||Disciplinary Decision|