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|
|December 01, 1998||C10980025||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Kory E. Guglielminetti||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 24, 1998||C06980015||Order and Decision Granting Enforcement's Motion for Summary Disposition in Department of Enforcement v. Terry Don Rader||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 18, 1998||C01960020||Daniel Wright Sisson||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 17, 1998||C02980025||Order and Decision Granting Enforcement's Motion for Summary Disposition in Department of Enforcement v. Roger Harry Chlowitz||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 13, 1998||C02960024||James Basil Peters||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 11, 1998||C8A960094||Norman M. Merz||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 03, 1998||C05930020||Donald R. Gates||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 29, 1998||C3B980006||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Carlton Case Ellis||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 26, 1998||C3A980027||Order Granting Complainant's Motion for Leave to Offer Telephone Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|October 23, 1998||C06980015||Order Denying Motion to Stay Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|October 22, 1998||C8A970040||Herbert L. Davis, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 22, 1998||C07960105||Wayne B. Vaughan||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 22, 1998||C8A960081||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 8, Complainant, vs. Respondent Firm 1 and Respondent 2||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|October 22, 1998||C9A960029||Pamela A. Hartsock||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 22, 1998||C9A960029||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 9, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|October 20, 1998||C10970176||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert FitzPatrick||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 15, 1998||C07970006||Joseph G. Chiulli||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 14, 1998||CMS920005||John Roger Faherty & Nianne A. Norris||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 13, 1998||C8A960052||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 8, Complainant, vs. Respondent 1 and Respondent 2||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|October 07, 1998||C06980001||Order and Decision Granting Enforcement's Motion for Summary Disposition in Department of Enforcement v. Blake Vincent High||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 02, 1998||CAF980022||Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Enforcement's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses and Denying Motion to Dismiss||Disciplinary Order|
|October 02, 1998||CAF970011||Order Denying Motions for Interlocutory Appeal and to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Stay the Proceeding||Disciplinary Order|
|September 18, 1998||C05960074||In the Matter of District Business Conduct Committee For District No. 5 Complainant, vs. Respondent||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|September 16, 1998||C9A970045||Order Denying Motion for Entry of Default Decision||Disciplinary Order|
|September 14, 1998||C07960096||Hunter International Securities, Inc., & Louis N. Nizza, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|