Adjudication & 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|
|November 18, 1997||C3A960014||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee for District No. 3 Complainant, vs. Respondent 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|November 18, 1997||C3A960014||John Holland||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 15, 1997||C07970055||Final Pre-hearing Conference Order||Disciplinary Order|
|November 14, 1997||C10970141||Order Extending Time for Respondents to Answer||Disciplinary Order|
|November 13, 1997||CAF970002||Order Regarding Motion of Respondents Requesting an Extension of Time to Answer, a More Definite Answer, and an Updated Service List||Disciplinary Order|
|November 11, 1997||CAF970002||Order Denying Motion of Respondents and for Extension of Time to Answer||Disciplinary Order|
|November 05, 1997||C01950010||Ashton N. Gowadia||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 30, 1997||C8A930048||Miguel Angel Cruz||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 30, 1997||C8A950030||James Allen Merlen & City Securities Corporation||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 29, 1997||C10970160||Order Denying Motion for a More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|October 29, 1997||CMS960105||Order Denying Motion for Disqualification of Hearing Officer||Disciplinary Order|
|October 10, 1997||C05960041||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee for District No. 5, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|October 07, 1997||C3A970066||Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel to Respondent||Disciplinary Order|
|September 19, 1997||C3A940064||Aspen Capital Group, Inc., & Stephen Carlson||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 18, 1997||C10970158||Order Extending Time for Respondents to Answer||Disciplinary Order|
|September 18, 1997||C8A940073||Steven Herbert Johansen||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 15, 1997||C10970142||Order Denying Request for Extension of Time in Which to Answer||Disciplinary Order|
|September 05, 1997||C01960013||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee for District No. 1, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|August 28, 1997||C01950021||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee for District No. 1, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1 and Respondent 2||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|August 28, 1997||C05950018||John M.W. Crute, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 28, 1997||C02950053||Michael Edgar Goldstein, Jeffrey B. Goodman, Jason Scott Neu, William Reininger, & Joseph Patrick Hannan||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 28, 1997||C05950018||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 5 Complainant, v. Respondent 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|August 22, 1997||CMS920002||Warren R. Schreiber & Marian S. Gargano||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 22, 1997||C8A960074||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 8 Complainant, vs. Respondent 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|August 12, 1997||CMS950129||Vladislav Steven Zubkis||Disciplinary Decision|