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|
|April 17, 2006||E1020040926-01||Order Directing the Respondents to File a Proper Answer to the Complaint||Disciplinary Order|
|April 17, 2006||CLI050016||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Frank P. Grasso||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 12, 2006||CLG050021||Order Partially Granting the Complainant's Motion to Disqualify Expert Witness||Disciplinary Order|
|April 05, 2006||DFC050011||Decision in NASD Treasurer v. Lee Fisher||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|March 23, 2006||E102003130804||Order Regarding Respondent's Pre-Hearing Submissions||Disciplinary Order|
|March 23, 2006||CLI050007||Order Precluding Evidence and Denying Respondent's Motion to Continue Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|March 15, 2006||E0220030425-01||Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Leave to Introduce Testimony of Handwriting Experts and Denying Respondent's Motion to Introduce Testimony of a Polygraph Examiner||Disciplinary Order|
|March 15, 2006||C05020055||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Michael F. Siegel||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 15, 2006||CLG050021||Order Denying Complainant's Motion to Continue Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|March 12, 2006||CAF040079||Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Summary Disposition||Disciplinary Order|
|March 09, 2006||CAF040079||Order Granting Enforcement's Motion for Witness Sequestration||Disciplinary Order|
|March 09, 2006||CAF020048||Vincent M. Uberti||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 08, 2006||CAF040079||Order Granting Enforcement's Motion to Offer Testimony Via Telephone||Disciplinary Order|
|March 07, 2006||CLG050048||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|March 03, 2006||CAF030014||; CALLED FOR REVIEW: Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|March 03, 2006||E9B2003033501||Order Sustaining Complainant's Objections to Respondent's Expert Witness Designation and Report||Disciplinary Order|
|March 03, 2006||CLG050049||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation vs. Shawn E. Aaron||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 02, 2006||C9B020032||Rooney A. Sahai||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 01, 2006||C04050005||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Robert E. Strong||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 23, 2006||C01040010||Patrick Orvil Nugent||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 21, 2006||C9B030076||Raghavan Sathianathan||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 10, 2006||C04050014||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Dennis P. Cooper||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 10, 2006||C07040042||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. John D. Kaweske||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 09, 2006||E9B2003033501||Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Issuance Of Rule 8210 Requests for Information||Disciplinary Order|
|February 08, 2006||CAF040058||Order Denying Respondents' Motion to Invoke Procedural Rule 8210||Disciplinary Order|