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|
|July 12, 2006||C8A050055||; CALLED FOR REVIEW: Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Daniel W. Bukovcik||Disciplinary Decision|
|June 28, 2006||FPI060005||The Reid Group LLC||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|June 28, 2006||ARB060005||Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|June 09, 2006||E0220030425-01||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Geoffrey Ortiz||Disciplinary Decision|
|June 05, 2006||CAF040052||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Jericho Nicolas et al.||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 31, 2006||CAF030007||Order Granting Complainant's Motion to Withdraw the Complaint, with Prejudice||Disciplinary Order|
|May 22, 2006||E072004087801||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Hung The Nguyen||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 19, 2006||C01040019||Beerbaum & Beerbaum Financial and Insurance Services, Inc., and Hans N. Beerbaum||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 15, 2006||CMS040202||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation vs. Marshall J. Field||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 05, 2006||CAF030007||Order Granting Complainant's Motion to Withdraw the Complaint, with Prejudice||Disciplinary Order|
|April 25, 2006||CLG050021||Order Following Final Pre-Hearing Conference and Ruling on Motions in Limine||Disciplinary Order|
|April 18, 2006||ARB060010||Order Dismissing Request for Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|April 17, 2006||CLI050016||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Frank P. Grasso||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 17, 2006||E0220030425-01||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Disqualify Expert Witness||Disciplinary Order|
|April 17, 2006||E1020040926-01||Order Directing the Respondents to File a Proper Answer to the Complaint||Disciplinary Order|
|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||CLI050007||Order Precluding Evidence and Denying Respondent's Motion to Continue Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|March 23, 2006||E102003130804||Order Regarding Respondent's Pre-Hearing Submissions||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 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 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|