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|
|May 27, 2005||C06040023||Order Denying Request for Subpoena||Disciplinary Order|
|May 25, 2005||C10030110||Ram Kapara||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 24, 2005||C02020057||Alvin W. Gebhart, Jr. and Donna T. Gebhart||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 24, 2005||C9A040024||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Charles C. Fawcett, IV||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 18, 2005||C8A030068||Todd Grafenauer||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 18, 2005||CMS030269||Anthony John Orlando, Jr. and Philip Anthony Orlando||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 17, 2005||C9B040098||Order Denying Relief Sought in Notice to Produce and Application for Protective Order||Disciplinary Order|
|May 17, 2005||C9B040098||Order Granting Motions to Strike Affirmative Defenses and for Leave to Offer Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|May 11, 2005||C3A030050||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Roger P. May||Disciplinary Decision|
|May 05, 2005||C02040032||Order Denying Respondent's Request for Leave to Offer Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|May 03, 2005||C8A030062||Paul Zdzieblowski||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 25, 2005||C07040084||Order Granting Complainant's Motion for Telephone Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|April 21, 2005||CAF040070||Order Denying Respondents' Motion for Leave to Introduce Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|April 21, 2005||C9B030045||Michael O'Hare||Disciplinary Decision|
|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||In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant vs. Respondent||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 06, 2005||C9B040020||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|April 05, 2005||CAF040002||Order Denying Complainant's Objection to Expert Testimony of Paul Mason||Disciplinary Order|
|April 05, 2005||C10020090||Joseph Abbondante||Disciplinary Decision|
|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|