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|
|January 26, 2017||2012030738501||APPEALED: J.W. Korth and Company||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 25, 2017||SD-2062||Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.||Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|January 25, 2017||SD-2062||Oppenheimer & Co.||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 13, 2017||2013036799501||J. Michael Casas||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 13, 2017||2011026346206||Jaoshiang Luo||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 11, 2017||2013037097602||Jeffery A. Vaughn||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 10, 2017||2012033362101||Thomas Edmund Connors||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 06, 2017||2012030724101||Fox Financial Management Corporation, Brian A. Murphy, James E. Rooney, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 04, 2017||2014041319201||Miguel Ortiz||Disciplinary Decision|
|December 28, 2016||2014042690502||Order Granting, in Part, Respondents' Motion Requesting Issuance of FINRA Rule 8210 Requests.||Disciplinary Order|
|December 16, 2016||2014040876001||APPEALED: Kenneth J. Mathieson||Disciplinary Decision|
|December 14, 2016||2012033832501||APPEALED: Matthew D. Rubin||Disciplinary Decision|
|December 14, 2016||2015044823501||Order Denying Respondent Beyn’s Motion for Additional Discovery.||Disciplinary Order|
|December 13, 2016||2014040501801||Texas E&P Partners, Inc., F/K/A Chestnut Exploration Partners, Inc., F/K/A Chestnut Energy Partners, Inc. and Mark A. Plummer||Disciplinary Decision|
|December 12, 2016||2013036653301||Vincent Au||Disciplinary Decision|
|December 08, 2016||DFC160001||McBarron Capital, LLC||Expedited Decision|
|December 01, 2016||ARB160019||Michael David Schwartz||Expedited Decision|
|November 28, 2016||2013038770901||Ricky R. Moore||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 23, 2016||20080148227-02||Order Deferring Ruling on Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings.||Disciplinary Order|
|November 18, 2016||ARB160035||REMANDED: Keith Patrick Sequeira||Expedited Decision|
|November 14, 2016||2014040476901||Order Denying Respondents’ Motion Under Rule 9252 For Issuance of Requests for Documents and Information.||Disciplinary Order|
|November 11, 2016||2013035533701||APPEALED: Meyers Associates, L.P.||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 04, 2016||2013038986001||APPEALED: Richard A. Riemer, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 04, 2016||2014039839101||Order Granting Enforcement’s Motion for Partial Summary Disposition.||Disciplinary Order|
|October 31, 2016||2014042524301||Order Regarding Respondent’s Motions to Stay Case Management and Scheduling Order and to Strike and/or For a More Definite Statement.||Disciplinary Order|