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 02, 2013||2009017529101||Order Denying Respondent’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and a List of Withheld Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|April 26, 2013||2008015934801||Alan Jay Davidofsky||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 24, 2013||2009019369302||Jeff Ng||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 15, 2013||2011030192201||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Alfred P. Reeves III||Disciplinary Decision|
|April 04, 2013||20070094013||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|March 21, 2013||2009017527501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Steven Robert Tomlinson||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 21, 2013||2010024837301||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Carlos Francisco Otalvaro||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 15, 2013||2010021621201||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Michael Pino||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 15, 2013||20080127674, 20080133768||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Angelo Xagoraris||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 13, 2013||2011026874301||Memorandum Order Directing Respondent to Comply with Rule 8210 Request for Information Regarding Respondent’s Reliance on Counsel Defense||Disciplinary Order|
|March 12, 2013||2011025674101||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Shlomi S. Eplboim||Disciplinary Decision|
|March 04, 2013||2008013864401||Amended Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Michael Jennings, Brian Mulvey and Respondent 3||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 26, 2013||2007010158001||CapWest Securities, Inc.: Appealed||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 26, 2013||2010024320101||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Timothy M. Wheeler||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 22, 2013||2006005318801||Kent M. Houston||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 21, 2013||2011029760201||Hearing Panel Decision Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Disposition in Departement of Enforcement v. Charles Schwab & Company, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 19, 2013||2011029152401||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. William B. Smith||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 15, 2013||2008014621701||Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC and Stephen H. Brinck, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 15, 2013||2007010580702||Dennis Thomas Palmeri, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|February 04, 2013||2009017439601||Timothy Joseph Golonka||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 25, 2013||2009017798902||Extended Hearing Panel Decision in Depatment of Enforcement v. Respondent 1 and Respondent 2||Redacted Decision|
|January 18, 2013||2010023044101||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Jeffrey S. Geraci||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 11, 2013||2009016764901||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Robert Durant Tucker||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 04, 2013||2010023349601||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Denise M. Olson||Disciplinary Decision|
|January 04, 2013||FPI120005||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Gregory E. Goldstein||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|