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|
|May 06, 2015||2009016317701||The Dratel Group, Inc. and William M. Dratel||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 04, 2015||2009016159110||Anthony Spagnolo, III||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 04, 2015||2009016159111||Brian Sanders||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 04, 2015||M00010006||APPEALED: In the Matter of the New Membership Application Firm X||Membership Decision, Redacted Decision|
|April 30, 2015||SD-1960||Scott Mathis with DPEC, Inc.||Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|April 29, 2015||2009017195204||Merrimac Corporate Securities, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 28, 2015||2012033351801||; CALLED FOR REVIEW: Paolo Franca Iida||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 22, 2015||SD-1962||Candace J. Lee with Financial Services International Corp||Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|April 16, 2015||2007011413501||APPEALED: Brookstone Securities, Inc., Antony Lee Turbeville, Christopher Dean Kline and David William Locy||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 16, 2015||SD-2054||Patrick Lubin with Dinosaur Securities||Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|April 08, 2015||2010024522103||Order Denying Motion Pursuant to FINRA Rule 9234||Disciplinary Order|
|April 08, 2015||2011025622001||Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Leave to Permit Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|April 02, 2015||2012034045101||Charles H. Melvin, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 02, 2015||2013036217601||Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Enforcement’s Motion for Partial Summary Disposition||Disciplinary Order|
|March 31, 2015||2011027666902||APPEALED: Merrimac Corporate Securities, Inc. and Robert Nash||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 30, 2015||2011025675501||APPEALED: Kimberly Springsteen-Abbott||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 30, 2015||2011025785602||Anthony Warren Thompson and TNP Securities, LLC||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 25, 2015||SD-2025||ConvergEx Execution Solutions, LLC||Statutory Disqualification, Approvals|
|March 19, 2015||20100215720-01||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Permission to Seek Additional Party Discovery||Disciplinary Order|
|March 18, 2015||DFC140002||Order Granting Complainant's Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request||Expedited Order|
|March 18, 2015||DFC140002||Order Granting Complainant’s Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request||Disciplinary Order|
|March 17, 2015||2011027271901||Richard Blair||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 16, 2015||2006006705601r||APPEALED: John M.E. Saad||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 12, 2015||FPI140011||Hearing Panel Decision in Regulatory Operations v. Alex Lubetsky||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|March 10, 2015||2011026788801||Keith Geary||Disciplinary Decision|