Adjudication & Decisions
When FINRA determines that violations of securities rules have occurred and formal disciplinary action is necessary, the Enforcement 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|
|July 27, 2007||E8A2002109804||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Joseph A. Zaragoza||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 26, 2007||C07050029||Anthony Cipriano||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 25, 2007||C8A050055||Daniel W. Bukovcik||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 25, 2007||C02040016||Philippe N. Keyes||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 13, 2007||2005001919501||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Compel Production of Exculpatory and Other Material Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|July 13, 2007||E102004083702||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. John Christopher Correro||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 12, 2007||E9A2004048801||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Brian J. Kelly||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 10, 2007||E9A2004001901||Douglas J. Toth||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 02, 2007||2005000323905||Order Denying Respondent 1's Motion for a More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|July 02, 2007||2005000960801||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Mangri Mohini Harlal||Disciplinary Decision|
|June 28, 2007||E102003025201||Procedural Pre-Hearing Order||Disciplinary Order|
|June 27, 2007||E102003025201||Order Regarding Pre-Hearing Motions||Disciplinary Order|
|June 26, 2007||20050000720-02||Order Denying Respondent 2's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Directing Respondent 2 to Supplement His Motion for a Rule 9252 Order||Disciplinary Order|
|June 19, 2007||20050025930||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Carolyn S. Everhard||Disciplinary Decision|
|June 13, 2007||2006004494201||Order Quashing Post-Complaint Rule 8210 Request for Information||Disciplinary Order|
|June 13, 2007||ARB070023||Order Deeming (1) Respondent's Defense Abandoned, (2) the Hearing Waived, and (3) the NASD Suspension Notice Final||Disciplinary Order|
|June 13, 2007||20050000720-02||Order Prohibiting Use of Subpoenas||Disciplinary Order|
|June 12, 2007||2005000191701||Order Denying Respondent 3's Two Discovery Requests||Disciplinary Order|
|June 11, 2007||CAF040079||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Preclude Evidence and Requiring Enforcement to File a Declaration||Disciplinary Order|
|June 11, 2007||E102003025201||Order Ruling on (1) Objections to Witnesses, (2) Motion to Substitute Exhibit, (3) Motions in Limine, and (4) Motions to Strike the Respondents' Affirmative Defenses||Disciplinary Order|
|May 25, 2007||2005000078501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Market Regulation v. Mark Allen Borsky||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 24, 2007||C02040032||Dana N. Frankfort||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 18, 2007||E8A2003091501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Roy M. Strong||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 17, 2007||E102003025201||Order Denying Respondents' Request for Leave to Offer Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|May 11, 2007||CAF040079||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Preclude Evidence and Requiring Enforcement to File a Declaration||Disciplinary Order|