Adjudication & 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.
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|
|September 16, 2004||C9B040033||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Robert M. Ryerson||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 15, 2004||CAF030067||Order Denying Motion to Strike Witnesses||Disciplinary Order|
|September 15, 2004||CAF040056||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. L.H. Ross & Company, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 13, 2004||C3A030049||Order Precluding Evidence||Disciplinary Order|
|September 09, 2004||C9B040033||Order Requiring Respondent to Supplement his Rule 9252 Requests||Disciplinary Order|
|September 07, 2004||C3B020015||Davrey Financial Services, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 27, 2004||CAF030042||Hearing Panel Decision as to Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|August 25, 2004||C3A030050||Order Granting Motion for Leave to Offer Telephone Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|August 20, 2004||C10030003||In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant vs. Respondent Firm||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|August 19, 2004||ARB040029||Order Deeming Defense as Abandoned, Hearing as Waived, and Nasd Suspension Notice as Final||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 19, 2004||C01040001||Hearing Panel Decision as to Respondent IA and GH||Redacted Decision|
|August 17, 2004||C3A030050||Order Granting in Part, and Denying in Part, Respondent's Motion for Issuance of Rule 8210 Requests Pursuant to Rule 9252||Disciplinary Order|
|August 16, 2004||C01020025||Brookes McIntosh Bendetsen||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 16, 2004||CAF010021||J. Alexander Securities, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 12, 2004||C9B020032||Rooney A. Sahai||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 11, 2004||C07030065||In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant vs. Respondent 1 and Respondent 2||Redacted Decision|
|August 09, 2004||C01020025||Brookes McIntosh Bendetsen||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 09, 2004||C3B020013||Christopher R. Van Dyk||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 06, 2004||CLI030013||Hearing Panel Decision as to Respondent 1, 2, and 3||Redacted Decision|
|August 06, 2004||CMS030257||Hearing Panel Decision as to Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|August 02, 2004||CAF040056||Order Granting in Part, and Denying in Part, Enforcement's Motion for Leave to Offer Telephone Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|July 30, 2004||C06020003||Eric H. Dieffenbach and Michel A. Rooms||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 30, 2004||C9B040013||Order Granting Respondents' Motion to Introduce Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|July 16, 2004||C01020022||Hearing Panel Decision as to Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|July 13, 2004||C3A030015||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Herbert I. Kay||Disciplinary Decision|