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|
|December 07, 2005||C3A050003||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Kenneth Christopher Shelley||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 29, 2005||C9B050011||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Charles J. Cuozzo, Jr.||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 18, 2005||CAF040058||Order Regarding Admissibility of Tape Recordings and Transcripts||Disciplinary Order|
|November 15, 2005||CMS040165||Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order||Disciplinary Order|
|November 09, 2005||C02040044||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Douglas A. Rauh||Disciplinary Decision|
|November 09, 2005||C8A040091||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Joyce English||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 30, 2005||C9B040098||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Scott Epstein||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 30, 2005||CAF040079||Order Denying Motion to Reconsider Appointment of Extended Hearing Panelists||Disciplinary Order|
|October 30, 2005||C3A040045||Order (1) Granting Complainant's Motion for Leave to Offer Telephone Testimony and Denying Respondent's Motion to Postpone the Hearing; (2) Granting Complainant's Motion in Limine; and (3) Denying Respondent's Motion in Limine||Disciplinary Order|
|October 27, 2005||C8A030099||Timothy J. Duma||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 19, 2005||CAF040058||Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Leave to Introduce Expert Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|October 18, 2005||C8A030078||Scott E. Wiard & James D. Reisinger||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 12, 2005||C06030035||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Doyle Mark White||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 12, 2005||CMS030257||In the Matter of Department of Market Regulation, Complainant, vs. Respondent||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|October 11, 2005||CAF040058||Order Granting Joint Motion for a Protective Order||Disciplinary Order|
|October 11, 2005||C8A030089||Joseph Rogala||Disciplinary Decision|
|October 11, 2005||C9B050022||Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Discovery||Disciplinary Order|
|October 05, 2005||CLG050049||Order Regarding Attendance of Wittnesses' Counsel at Hearing||Disciplinary Order|
|October 03, 2005||FPI040002||Ryan & Company, LP and Scott W. Ryan||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 30, 2005||CMS040165||In the Matter of Department of Market Regulation, Complainant, vs.[Respondent Firm], et al.||Attorney Disqualification Ruling|
|September 27, 2005||C3A040001||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Charles A. DaCruz & Thomas J. Linda||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 26, 2005||ARB040051||Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|September 07, 2005||C01040025||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Jimmie Lee Griffith||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 07, 2005||C01040029||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Thomas James Carr||Disciplinary Decision|
|September 06, 2005||C01040001||Department of Enforcement, Complainant, vs. Respondent Firm and Respondent||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|