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 12, 2012||2008011701203||Daniel James Gallagher||Disciplinary Decision|
|December 10, 2012||2010023719601||Chad A. McCartney||Disciplinary Decision|
|December 06, 2012||FPI120012||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Steven Barbot||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|November 30, 2012||20100248883-01||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Richard N. Maruyama||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 19, 2012||2009018377601||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Michael J. Binstock||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 09, 2012||2010020846601||Order Granting Enforcement’s Motion to Offer Expert Testimony and Respondent’s Motion to Allow Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|November 01, 2012||2011025643201||Hearing Panel Decision Granting Department of Enforcement’s Motion for Summary Disposition in Department of Enforcement v. Ronald E. Walblay||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 25, 2012||2010022128301||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|October 25, 2012||2008016437801||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Hugh Vincent Murray III||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 23, 2012||2011026664301||Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Department of Enforcement’s Motion to Strike the Answer and Order the Filing of a New Answer||Disciplinary Order|
|October 22, 2012||2010025132201||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Amy Siesennop||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 17, 2012||2010024320101||Order to Provide Verification in Support of Request for Continuance of Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|October 12, 2012||2009018771602||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|September 28, 2012||2009019837302||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Blair C. Mielke, Frederick W. Shultz, Thomas J. Gorter and Michael L. Trier||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 28, 2012||2008012925001||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. The Dratel Group, Inc. and William M. Dratel||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 26, 2012||2007008239001||ACAP Financial Inc. and Gary Hume||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 20, 2012||2010021916601||Joseph S. Amundsen||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 18, 2012||2008014015901||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Jeremy D. Hare||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 14, 2012||2007007792902||Edward S. Brokaw||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 30, 2012||2010023367001||Order Denying Respondent 1’s Motion to Compel Production of Withheld Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|August 28, 2012||2008013863702||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|August 23, 2012||2008015617902||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Thomas H. Morrow||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 02, 2012||20070094044||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Wedbush Securities Inc. and Edward W. Wedbush||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 01, 2012||2006005786501||Joseph A. Padilla and Andrea M. Ritchie(f/k/a Andrea M. Bruno)||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 26, 2012||2008015105601||Nolan Wayne Moore||Disciplinary Decision|