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|
|May 03, 2007||2005000029202||Initial Case-Management Order||Disciplinary Order|
|April 28, 2007||E8A2003062001||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|April 24, 2007||2005000127502||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation v. Steven Richard Jaloza, Neal Anthony Impellizeri, and Michael Raymond Gimeli||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 24, 2007||E9B2002010501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Kevin M. Glodek||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 20, 2007||2005002570601||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Paul Douglas Paratore||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 18, 2007||C11040006||Hearing Panel Order Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part, Complainant's Motion for Summary Disposition||Disciplinary Order|
|April 16, 2007||ARB060031||In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant vs. Respondent||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|April 12, 2007||E1020040926-01||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondents||Redacted Decision|
|April 11, 2007||CAF040079||Order Granting in Part Respondent's Motion to Exceed Time Limits for Specific Witnesses and Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Total Number of Witnesses to Be Called||Disciplinary Order|
|April 11, 2007||CLG050021||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation v. John Patrick Leighton and Kenneth D. Pasternak||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 09, 2007||2006004493301||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Mark S. Ritchey||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 30, 2007||20042000056-01||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|March 28, 2007||CAF040079||Order Regarding Witnesses||Disciplinary Order|
|March 27, 2007||2005000440701||Order Regarding Pre-Hearing Motions||Disciplinary Order|
|March 22, 2007||C10040052||Order Denying Respondents' Motion for Partial Summary Disposition||Disciplinary Order|
|March 20, 2007||E9B2003026301||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Timothy Behany, Edward M. VanGrouw, and Carl Martin Trevisan||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 16, 2007||C02050006||Order Requiring Counsel to File Notice of Representation or Withdrawal||Disciplinary Order|
|March 15, 2007||ARB060035||Wedbush Morgan Securities, Inc.||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|March 07, 2007||2005000316701||Order Granting Motion to Compel or Alternatively to Preclude Oral or Documentary Evidence||Disciplinary Order|
|February 28, 2007||2005001514501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|February 28, 2007||2005001305701||Order Setting Philadelphia, Pa as Venue for Disciplinary Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|February 27, 2007||C8A050027||Marylan Taylor||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 27, 2007||C9B050011||Charles J. Cuozzo, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 23, 2007||C04050005||Robert E. Strong||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 22, 2007||E8A2002109804||Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Telephone Testimony and Deferring Ruling on Respondent's Objection to Enforcement's Proposed Exhibit CX-7||Disciplinary Order|