Adjudications & Decisions
When FINRA determines that violations of securities rules have occurred and formal disciplinary action is necessary, the Enforcement 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.
Appeals Process
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.
View All Adjudications & Decisions
| Date of Decision | Proceeding No. | Title | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 05, 2000 | CAF990007 | Order Denying Respondents' Motion Seeking Leave to Introduce Expert Witness Testimony | Disciplinary Order |
| April 24, 2000 | C8A990032 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Marcus K. Hughes and Christopher Aden | Disciplinary Decision |
| April 20, 2000 | C10970141 | Marlowe Robert Walker, III | Disciplinary Decision |
| April 19, 2000 | C07990016 | James O. Baxter, Jr. | Disciplinary Decision |
| April 18, 2000 | C3A980069 | Michael A. Usher | Disciplinary Decision |
| April 14, 2000 | CMS960174 | Vincent M. Carrella | Disciplinary Decision |
| April 10, 2000 | C01990002 | Bernard San Juan Rondez | Disciplinary Decision |
| April 06, 2000 | C07960105 | Wayne B. Vaughan | Disciplinary Decision |
| April 04, 2000 | C0500006 | Order Granting in Part Respondent Motion for More Definite Statement | Disciplinary Order |
| March 28, 2000 | C1000010 | Order Granting Enforcement's Motion for Leave to Withhold From Production Certain Documents | Disciplinary Order |
| March 27, 2000 | C10970176 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert FitzPatrick | Disciplinary Decision |
| March 26, 2000 | CAF980002 | Order Regarding Respondents' Motion to Preclude Designation of Transcripts; Respondents' Motion for a Protective Order; and Enforcement's Motion for Post-Hearing Submissions in Excess of Twenty-Five Pages | Disciplinary Order |
| March 19, 2000 | C10990014 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Stephen Earl Prout | Disciplinary Decision |
| March 10, 2000 | C3A990067 | Order Denying Respondent Second Motion for More Definite Statement | Disciplinary Order |
| March 10, 2000 | C02980085 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert Tretiak | Disciplinary Decision |
| March 09, 2000 | C3A990031 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Charles W. Testino | Disciplinary Decision |
| March 09, 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 |
| March 06, 2000 | C8B990036 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Samuel Wereb | Disciplinary Decision |
| March 06, 2000 | C02990042 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert Tretiak | Disciplinary Decision |
| March 01, 2000 | C05990026 | Order Rejecting Contested Offer of Settlement | Disciplinary Order |
| February 17, 2000 | C10990024 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Averell Golub | Disciplinary Decision |
| February 16, 2000 | C02980024 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert Joseph Kernweis, William Pohn Willis, Arnold Hinsdale Kraus, and Keith Allen Dieterich | Disciplinary Decision |
| February 11, 2000 | CAF980031 | Hearing Panel Decision as to Respondent | Redacted Decision |
| February 08, 2000 | C02990034 | Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. I.C. Rideau, Lyons, & Co., Inc., Lamar A. Lyons, Sr., and Joyce A. Green | Disciplinary Decision |
| February 07, 2000 | CMS950041 | In the Matter of Market Regulation Committee, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1 and Respondent Firm 2 | Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision |