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|
|August 31, 2005||CMS020247||Terrance Yoshikawa||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 30, 2005||CMS040094||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Florida Discount Securities, Inc.||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 19, 2005||CMS040165||Order on Remand From the National Adjudicatory Council Granting Complinant's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2||Disciplinary Order|
|August 10, 2005||ARB050014||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Respondent||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|August 08, 2005||C02050006||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Malvinder Sonny Matharu||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 05, 2005||C3A040023||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. John M. Meyers, Brian C. Klein & Israel E. Lozada||Disciplinary Decision|
|August 05, 2005||C3A040045||Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Summary Disposition on the Issue of Restitution||Disciplinary Order|
|August 04, 2005||C9B040098||Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Hearing Officer||Disciplinary Order|
|August 02, 2005||ARB050016||In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant vs. Respondent||Expedited Decision, Rule 9550 Expedited Decisions|
|July 29, 2005||C8A030071||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC, Diane B. Horn & Respondent 3||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 18, 2005||C3A040030||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Michael Fantetti||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 08, 2005||C8A040079||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Gregory R. Masceri||Disciplinary Decision|
|July 07, 2005||C07040086||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Brad D. Wilson||Disciplinary Decision|
|June 30, 2005||C05050015||Order Denying Motions to Quash||Disciplinary Order|
|June 23, 2005||C3A040045||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Compel and Motion Pursuant to Rule 9252||Disciplinary Order|
|June 17, 2005||CMS040165||In the Matter of Department of Market Regulation, Complainant, vs.[Respondent Firm], et al.||Attorney Disqualification Ruling|
|June 15, 2005||C3A040030||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Re-Open Hearing and Denying Complainant's Motion to Strike Respondent's Testimony||Disciplinary Order|
|June 14, 2005||CAF040058||Order Prohibiting Use of Subpoenas||Disciplinary Order|
|June 14, 2005||CAF010011||J. Alexander Sec., Inc., Richard Newberg, James Alexander||Disciplinary Decision|
|June 10, 2005||C9B050020||Order Conditionally Denying Motion for More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|June 09, 2005||CMS030181||In the Matter of Department of Market Regulation, Complainant, vs. Respondent||Disciplinary Decision, Redacted Decision|
|June 08, 2005||C8A040082||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Samuel J. Trigillo||Disciplinary Decision|
|June 07, 2005||C05050015||Order Denying Respondent 1's Motion for More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|June 07, 2005||C05050015||Order Granting Respondent 2's Motion for More Definite Statement||Disciplinary Order|
|June 03, 2005||C9B040093||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Joel E. Moskowitz||Disciplinary Decision|