Enforcement Actions
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
CASES OF NOTE
2009
NOTE: Stipulations of Fact and Consent to Penalty (SFC); Offers of Settlement (OS); and Letters of Acceptance Waiver, and Consent (AWC) are entered into by Respondents without admitting or denying the allegations, but consent is given to the described sanctions & to the entry of findings. Additionally, for AWCs, if FINRA has reason to believe a violation has occurred and the member or associated person does not dispute the violation, FINRA may prepare and request that the member or associated person execute a letter accepting a finding of violation, consenting to the imposition of sanctions, and agreeing to waive such member's or associated person's right to a hearing before a hearing panel, and any right of appeal to the National Adjudicatory Council, the SEC, and the courts, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the letter, if the letter is accepted. The letter shall describe the act or practice engaged in or omitted, the rule, regulation, or statutory provision violated, and the sanction or sanctions to be imposed.
Douglas John Toth
2332079
United States Court of Appeals Denied Petition for Review of the Securities and Exchange Commission decision that sustained findings of violation and sanctions on appeal of a National Adjudicatory Council decision on appeal from Office of Hearing Officers decision. 

Toth willfully caused the filing of a Form U4 that contained a misrepresentation of material fact.

Douglas John Toth: Suspended 1 year
Bill Singer's Comment

On July 3, 2003, the Attorney General of New Jersey and the New Jersey Bureau of Securities filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against Toth and others, alleging, among other things, fraud in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of securities in 2001. The July 2003 New Jersey complaint alleged that Toth and others made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the degree of risk associated with the investment, the intended investment aims of the defendants, and the suitability of the investment for 18 investors. In July 2005, the New Jersey Superior Court dismissed the July 2003 New Jersey complaint without prejudice.

The core fact here does not seem to be in dispute -- namley, that Toth's Form U4 in question failed to disclose the New Jersey civil action against him. The issue in dispute is whether Toth or a former employer was responsible for that failed disclosure.Toth testified that he informed his former employer of all disciplinary actions against him prior to the electronic filing of the Form U4. Toth’s former employer testified that Toth did not inform him of the New Jersey civil action, and that Toth did not review and correct a copy of the Form U4 that the former employer forwarded to him, despite repeated requests for him to do so. FINRA made a credibility determination in favor of the former employer’s version of events, which Toth unsuccessfully appealed..

http://sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2008/34-58074.pdf (SEC Decision)

The FINRA National Adjudicatory Council Decision

Enforcement Actions
Search in Cases of Note : FINRA
Months
 
Cases of Note : FINRA Archive
Tags