Practitioners are familiar with the fact that a failure to respond to a FINRA Rule 8210 request almost automatically results in an industry bar. Except when it doesn’t. The Office of Hearing Officers (the “OHO”) recently published a decision in which it discussed what the Hearing Officer referred to as a “partial but incomplete response” to FINRA’s requests for testimony.

In March, the OHO rendered a decision against Jason DiPaola who was accused by FINRA Enforcement of taking discretion in his mother’s E-trade account without written instructions and without disclosing the account to his employer Chardan Capital Markets, LLC (“Chardan”) in violation of NASD Rule 3050. Dep’t of Enforcement v. DiPaola, Discip. Proc. No. 2018057274302 (OHO Mar. 25, 2022). The OHO, however, claimed that the “most serious allegation” was DiPaola’s failure to appear and provide on-the-record (“OTR”) testimony.

DiPaola was not a trader at Chardan and had no retail customers. DiPaola worked in the firm’s equity capital markets group. DiPaola was first interviewed by FINRA Staff in January of 2018. The Staff obtained account statements for DiPaola’s E-trade accounts and his mother’s E-trade account. FINRA also obtained over a million e-mails from Chardan.

The Staff asked for a second OTR which took place in April 2019. During the second OTR, DiPaola’s counsel, who also represented Chardan, asked that the OTR be suspended because he discovered that he had a conflict upon hearing DiPaola’s testimony. A third OTR took place over two days on July 17, 2019 and July 18, 2019.

On March 11, 2021, a year and eight months since DiPaola’s two-day, 2019 OTR, the Staff asked for yet another OTR on March 26, 2021. DiPaola’s counsel informed the Staff that he was not available on March 26^th. On March 26, 2021 the Staff sent DiPaola’s counsel a Wells Notice and another Rule 8210 request for an OTR on April 5^th. Dipaola’s attorney responded in an e-mail, “[a]re you serious? You served a Wells Notice, you cannot take another OTR after serving a Wells Notice. Does your supervisor know what you are doing?” The FINRA Supervisor declined to withdraw the request and DiPaola failed to appear on April 5^th. Enforcement sent another 8210 requesting an OTR on April 15, 2021 which DiPaola also failed to attend.

DiPaola argued that FINRA lacked the authority to demand his testimony because FINRA’s investigation had concluded with the issuance of the Wells Notice. In making this argument, DiPaola relied on FINRA Regulatory Notice 09-17 (“RN 09-17”). RN 09-17 discusses the Wells process. Part of the process is that, after receiving a Wells Notice, the potential respondent is then given the opportunity to make a Wells Submission explaining why formal charges are unwarranted. RN 09-17 states that the Staff will review the Wells Submission “and may ask for additional information or obtain additional evidence in the matter.” DiPaola’’s attorney’s argued that no further investigation could take place until DiPaola had made a Wells Submission. The Hearing Officer disagreed.

Here is where the matter gets interesting. Enforcement sought to bar DiPaola from the industry for failing to attend the OTR. As many lawyers know, this is the standard sanction that FINRA seeks for failing to respond to an 8210 request and it is routinely granted by the OHO. For an individual who provides a partial but incomplete response to Rule 8210 requests, the Sanction Guidelines state that “a bar is standard unless (i) the person can demonstrate that the information provided substantially complied with all aspects of the request,” or (ii) mitigating factors are present. The OHO stated that it was also required to assess (i) the importance of the information sought from FINRA’s perspective, (ii) the number of requests made and, (iii) whether the respondent provided valid reasons for not responding.

Despite finding that DiPaola had no valid reason for not responding and that the information sought was important, the Hearing Panel declined to impose a bar and only imposed a 30 day suspension. The most significant factor seem to have been the issuance of the Wells Notice. The Hearing Panel determined that the act of issuing the Wells Notice meant that Enforcement had reached a preliminary determination to recommend formal discipline. The Hearing Panel decided, therefore, that DiPaola’s prior testimony and information responses before April 2021 were “significantly, if not substantially compliant with Enforcement’s Rule 8210 requests.” Notably the OHO imposed no suspension related to the other causes of action and drastically reduced Enforcement’s request of a bar with regard to the Rule 8210 violation. The OHO also reduced Enforcement’s requested fines of $32,500 to a mere $5,000.

Interestingly, it was probably the threat of a bar that caused DiPaola to take this matter to an administrative hearing in the first place. Unfortunately for DiPaola, Enforcement’s overreach likely cost him a great deal in legal fees and anxiety. Despite this win, he probably wishes he had gone to that OTR in the first place.

Herskovits PLLC has a nationwide practice defending FINRA investigations and disciplinary proceedings. Feel free to call us for a consultation at (212) 897-5410.

This is a classic case of buyer’s remorse. In the case at hand, FA Jeffrey Mohlman settled with FINRA by executing a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (called an AWC) and, in so doing, agreed to a bar from the securities industry. Apparently displeased with his decision, he filed an action in court seeking almost $900,000 in damages by claiming that FINRA “committed fraud by inducing Plaintiff to fail to testify at a second disciplinary interview, thus allegedly fraudulently avoiding an alleged requirement that Defendants consider mitigating factors in the Plaintiff’s disciplinary case…” Mohlman’s claims received a chilly reception by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Mohlman v. FINRA, et al., Case No. 19-cv-154), which granted FINRA’s motion to dismiss on February 24, 2020.

Background

Mohlman entered the securities industry in 2001. In March 2015, Mohlman’s then-employer, Questar Capital Corporation, terminated his registration and filed a Form U5 claiming that Mohlman “resigned while under internal review for failure to follow firm policies and procedures regarding his participation in private securities transactions.” FINRA then launched an investigation and requested his appearance at an on-the-record interview (OTR) on September 11, 2015. On September 9, 2015, Mohlman’s lawyer informed FINRA that Mohlman received the OTR request but would be declining to appear. On September 17, 2015, Mohlman signed an AWC in which he agreed to a bar from the securities industry and waived various procedural rights.

Court Challenge

The essence of Mohlman’s claims against FINRA were summarized by the Court:

“Plaintiff complains that in entering into the AWC, FINRA allegedly failed to consider mitigating factors such as the death of a friend, the suicide of his brother-in-law and his own medications and medical history. He argues that the failure to consider these factors somehow led FINRA to fraudulently induce him to accept a bar from the securities industry. As result, Plaintiff seeks $891,000 in damages (legal fees, residual fees for lost business opportunities, reputational rehabilitation specialist fees, therapy fees, and punitive damages) against FINRA and Defendants Schroeder and Brown.”

The judge was not impressed by Mohlman’s arguments. The court held that Mohlman should have exhausted his administrative remedies (meaning, Mohlman should have rejected FINRA’s settlement offer and asserted his defenses before FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers) instead of settling with FINRA and then later complaining about the settlement. According to the court:

“Plaintiff had the opportunity to litigate a FINRA disciplinary complaint and subsequently seek administrative review of any result at the SEC and thereafter in a United States Court of Appeals, which were the administrative remedies available to him under the Exchange Act. Instead, he accepted a settlement resulting in a bar from the securities industry, and he expressly waived his right to administrative review. Plaintiff cannot now ask this Court to reconsider the decision he made, while represented by counsel, several years ago.”

This case highlights the finality associated with a decision to sign an AWC. Before doing so, FA’s would be wise to carefully consider their rights upon consultation with experienced counsel.

Herskovits PLLC has a nationwide practice representing individuals and entities under investigation by FINRA, the SEC and the CFTC. Feel free to call us at 212-897-5410 for a consultation.