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|
|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|
|February 20, 2007||2005001305701||Order Denying Respondents' Three Discovery Motions||Disciplinary Order|
|February 20, 2007||CLI050014||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Erik Matz||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 16, 2007||2005000316701||Order Ruling on Respondents' Motions to Strike Department of Enforcement's Exhibits||Disciplinary Order|
|February 16, 2007||E072004044201||Ralph Merhi||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 15, 2007||C3A050003||Kenneth Christopher Shelley||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 15, 2007||2005000316701||Order Ruling on Department of Enforcement's (1) Objections to Witnesses and Documents, (2) Motion to Partially Strike Respondents' Pre-Hearing Brief, (3) Motion in Limine, and (4) Motion for Ruling on the Admissibility of Documents and Business Records||Disciplinary Order|
|February 13, 2007||2005000094001||Order Denying Respondents' Motion for Leave to Offer Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|February 12, 2007||C02050006||In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant vs. Respondent||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|February 12, 2007||C06040027||Sterling Scott Lee and Dennis Todd Lloyd Gordon||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 12, 2007||C07040042||John D. Kaweske||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 05, 2007||2005001305701||Order Denying the Respondents' Motion for a More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|February 01, 2007||E3A20050065||Order Regarding Respondent's Pre-Hearing Submissions||Disciplinary Order|
|January 23, 2007||C3A040023||John M. Meyers and Brian C. Klein||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 17, 2007||C10040025||John Brigandi||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 08, 2007||C9A040024||Charles C. Fawcett IV||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 03, 2007||C3A040001||Charles A. DaCruz and Thomas J. Linda||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 01, 2007||SD07003||In the Matter of the Association of X||Redacted Decision, Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|January 01, 2007||SD07001||In the Matter of the Association of X||Redacted Decision, Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|January 01, 2007||SD07004||In the Matter of the Association of X||Redacted Decision, Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|January 01, 2007||SD07002||In the Matter of the Association of X||Redacted Decision, Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|December 29, 2006||C01040025||Jimmie Lee Griffith||Disciplinary Decision|
|December 28, 2006||E8A2003084806||Order Granting Complainant's Motion in Limine||Disciplinary Order|