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 18, 2005||C01040019||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Beerbaum & Beerbaum Financial and Insurance Services, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 15, 2005||CAF040025||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Steven C. Kirsch||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 12, 2005||ARB050010||Order Deeming Defense as Abandoned, Hearing as Waived, and Nasd Suspension Notice as Final||Disciplinary Order|
|April 07, 2005||CAF040058||Order Denying Respondents' Motion for Leave to Introduce Expert Testimony and to Compel Production of Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|April 06, 2005||C9B040020||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|April 06, 2005||C9B040020||In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant vs. Respondent||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 05, 2005||C10020090||Joseph Abbondante||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 05, 2005||CAF040002||Order Denying Complainant's Objection to Expert Testimony of Paul Mason||Disciplinary Order|
|April 04, 2005||CAF040002||Order Denying Respondents' Motion in Limine to Preclude Complainant from Using New Simulation Model||Disciplinary Order|
|March 30, 2005||CAF040002||Order Denying in Part The Department's Motion for Leave to Offer Testimony by Telephone and Denying the Respondents' Motion Pursuant to Rule 9252||Disciplinary Order|
|March 29, 2005||C01040017||Order Granting in Part the Department's Motion to Preclude the Respondent from Introducing Evidence at the Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|March 29, 2005||C02040044||Order Denying Motion for List of Documents Withheld||Disciplinary Order|
|March 22, 2005||C9B040069||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Howard Brett Berger||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 20, 2005||CAF030058||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Deem Admitted Statement of Undisputed Facts Supporting Motion for Summary Disposition||Disciplinary Order|
|March 17, 2005||CMS040202||Order Denying Motion for Order to Cease and Desist||Disciplinary Order|
|March 14, 2005||CAF040079||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Quash and Motion for a Protective Order||Disciplinary Order|
|March 14, 2005||C9B040036||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Respondent 1 and Michael Blaise Doherty||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 13, 2005||C9B040074||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Respondent Firm and James C. Ackerman||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 13, 2005||C10030095||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. John Audifferen||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 13, 2005||C9B040074||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. James C. Ackerman||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 02, 2005||CAF040056||Order Denying Enforcement's Motion to Modify Permanent Cease and Desist Order||Disciplinary Order|
|March 02, 2005||ARB040037||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Respondent||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|March 01, 2005||ARB050002||Order Granting Enforcement's Rule 9559(M) Motion and Dismissing Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|February 28, 2005||C9B040059||Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Hearing Officer Witherspoon||Disciplinary Order|
|February 24, 2005||C3A040023||Order Regarding Respondents' Pre-Hearing Submissions||Disciplinary Order|