I am troubled by this case because the June 18, 2008, OHO Decision seemed well reasoned and did not make light of Jordan's lapses. After hearing testimony and considering the totality of the case, the OHO Panel made a point of expressing the rationale for the degree of sanctions it imposed (See, Page 21 of the OHO Decision):

Next, the Hearing Panel considered the following mitigating factors. First, Jordan’s misconduct did not harm any customers or other members of the investing public.85 Enforcement did not allege, and there is no evidence, that Jordan’s employment opportunity influenced her judgment about Cadence. Indeed, her reports were in line with others issued at the same time. None of the reports contained biased or inaccurate information about Cadence. Second, her misconduct did not have the potential to benefit her monetarily.86 For example, Jordan did not alter her judgment about Cadence to secure more favorable terms of employment. Third, Jordan cooperated throughout the investigation of this matter. She testified truthfully at her on-the-record interviews; she did not attempt to conceal her actions or otherwise mislead FINRA.87

The absence of culpable intent and the aberrant nature of Jordan’s misconduct, along with the mitigating factors discussed above, lead the Hearing Panel to conclude that a fine on the low end of the recommended sanctions for these violations is sufficient. . . .

Additionally, by FINRA Press Release dated June 27, 2007, the NASD censured and fined Wells Fargo Securities, LLC of San Francisco $250,000 - and imposed a $40,000 fine and 60-day supervisory suspension against its former Director of Research, Douglas van Dorsten - for failing to disclose in a research report that Jennifer Jordan had accepted a job at Cadence Design Systems, a San Jose, CA company that was the subject of the report. Notably, both the OHO Decision and the Press Release confirm that although Wells Fargo and van Dorsten had learned nearly three weeks prior to the April 28 report that Jordan had accepted a position at Cadence as Vice President of Investor Relations, that information was not disclosed in the report, and that van Dorsten approved the April 28 report without requiring that the report disclose that Jordan had accepted a position with Cadence.

Why did the NAC slam Jordan on appeal?  The fine was nearly doubled that imposed by the OHO and a staggering 2 year suspension was tacked on. How could two deliberative bodies see things so differently -- and why wasn't more deference given to the panel that conducted a plenary hearing?

As of the writing of this Commentary on November 30, 2009, although FINRA has posted online the Press Release and the underlying OHO Decision, the NAC Decision is still not posted (the most recent online NAC Decision is in the matter of John M. Saad dated October 6, 2009).

It is a disservice to FINRA's members, the investing public, and Respondent Jordan to not timely post the OHO Decision so that all three interested parties can weigh the merits of the NAC's rationale for increasing the sanctions.