SEC Reviews FINRA Action - Adam Strege

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 104974 / March 11, 2026 Admin. Proc. File No. 3-22397 In the Matter of the Application of ADAM STREGE For Review of Action Taken by FINRA OPINION OF THE COMMISSION REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION – REVIEW OF FINRA ACTION Individual appealed FINRA action prohibiting his access to its customer arbitration forum. Held, application for review is dismissed in part and FINRA action is set aside in part. APPEARANCES: Adam Strege, pro se. Michael Garawski, Jennifer Brooks, and Megan Rauch for FINRA. Appeal filed: January 1, 2025 Last brief received: May 7, 2025

Adam Strege seeks review of a FINRA action prohibiting him from accessing its customer arbitration forum. In two prior opinions arising under similar circumstances, the Securities and Exchange Commission sustained FINRA’s denials of Strege’s use of its arbitral forum, finding that FINRA had reasonably concluded that permitting Strege to access the forum would pose a safety risk to FINRA staff and other arbitration participants. Because the record supports FINRA’s determination that Strege still poses a safety risk, we again sustain FINRA’s latest action denying him access to its arbitration forum and therefore dismiss in part Strege’s application for review. We set aside the portion of FINRA’s order, however, that prospectively denies Strege from any future attempt to use the forum. I. Background Since November 2022, Strege has filed numerous statements of claim with FINRA’s consumer arbitration forum. His first statement of claim (and an attachment), filed against TD Ameritrade and a non-FINRA member, was lengthy, difficult to follow, and laden with references to violence and mass-casualty events. FINRA denied Strege access to its arbitration forum without explanation, but after appeal and remand from the Commission, FINRA’s Director of Dispute Resolution Services (the “Director”) explained that entertaining Strege’s claims would present a safety risk to other arbitration participants and FINRA staff. According to the Director, that risk could not be mitigated by conducting the arbitration remotely. Strege then filed a second statement of claim that omitted references to violence, but the Director again denied use of the forum because Strege’s statement of claim did not dissuade the Director that Strege posed a threat to others. On appeal, the Commission upheld the Director’s first two denials and dismissed the application for review. After the Commission issued its opinion, Strege, on December 7, 2024, filed a new statement of claim that, though still lengthy and difficult to follow, again omitted any discussion of violence or violent events. The Director again denied Strege access to the arbitration forum, concluding that Strege’s new claims did “nothing to dissuade” the Director that Strege still posed a “serious safety risk.” The Commission again sustained the Director’s findings and dismissed Strege’s appeal. In doing so, the Commission reasoned that, despite the lack of any mention of violence or other disturbing content in Strege’s statement of claim, the Director’s decision was nevertheless reasonable because the Director was entitled to consider Strege’s past history of filings and an The Commission’s prior opinions provide more background concerning Strege’s arbitration claims and FINRA’s responses. Adam Strege (Strege III), Exchange Act Release No. 104500, 2025 WL 3757894 (Dec. 23, 2025); Adam Strege (Strege II), Exchange Act Release No. 101414, 2024 WL 4581676 (Oct. 23, 2024); see also Adam Strege (Strege I), Exchange Act Release No. 99267, 2024 WL 49089, at *1 (Jan. 3, 2024) (remanding “proceeding for further action because we are unable to determine the basis for FINRA’s action”). Strege I, 2024 WL 49089. Strege II, 2024 WL 4581676. Strege III, 2025 WL 3757894.

arrest and because Strege had “not disavowed his earlier statements about violence, or otherwise provided any basis for the Director (or for us) to conclude that he was no longer a threat given his history.” Meanwhile, in the days following the Director’s denial of use of the forum as to Strege’s December 7 claim, Strege filed with FINRA a motion for reconsideration of that denial and two new statements of claim seeking access to FINRA’s consumer arbitration forum. Some of his newest filings contained references to violence. On December 16, 2024, FINRA sent Strege a letter informing him that, based on the Director’s denial letters upheld by the Commission in Strege II, the Director was again denying Strege use of FINRA’s arbitration forum. FINRA also stated that its denial was applicable “for your statement of claim and any future statement of claim” and added that “FINRA will not be responding to any new statements of claim or filings in this matter or any future matter.” In this appeal, Strege seeks review of the Director’s December 16 denial letter. FINRA moved to dismiss his application for review as abandoned after he failed to timely file a brief in support of it. On the day that FINRA filed its motion, however, Strege filed a brief in support of his application for review. In the exercise of our discretion, we decline to dismiss Strege’s appeal as abandoned. II. Analysis Under Exchange Act Section 19(f), we review a FINRA action prohibiting a person’s access to its services to determine whether (1) the specific grounds on which FINRA based the action exist in fact; (2) the action was in accordance with FINRA’s rules; and (3) FINRA’s rules are, and were applied in a manner, consistent with the Exchange Act’s purposes. As explained below, we again conclude that FINRA’s denial of the arbitration forum for Strege’s already-filed statements of claim was reasonable, and we therefore dismiss in part Strege’s application for review. However, because we conclude that FINRA’s preemptive denial of access for future statements of claim was inconsistent with FINRA rules and the Exchange Act, we set aside that aspect of FINRA’s action. A. FINRA reasonably denied Strege access to its arbitration forum, and that denial was consistent with FINRA rules and the Exchange Act. FINRA Rule 12203(a) provides that the Director may deny an arbitral forum when “accepting the matter would pose a risk to the health or safety of arbitrators, staff, or parties or Id. at *2. The Director’s letter denying Strege access to the arbitration forum lists six FINRA matters, but it appears that only two of the matters related to new statements of claim (Arbitration Case Numbers 24-02612 and 24-02620). 15 U.S.C. § 78s(f). Section 19(f) also requires us to set aside FINRA’s action if we find that the action imposes an undue burden on competition. Id. Strege does not argue, and the record does not show, that FINRA’s action imposes such a burden here.

their representatives.” Strege’s most recent filings with FINRA contain some references to violence. Even if they did not, however, the Director could reasonably conclude that Strege remained a health-and-safety risk. To start, the Director’s consideration of Strege’s history of filings containing violent and disturbing content, as well as his prior arrest for allegedly making bomb threats against a federal agency, was permissible. Strege has, moreover, neither disclaimed his earlier statements about violence, nor provided any other reasons to conclude that he was no longer a threat given his history. Indeed, Strege’s filings to the Commission on appeal provides us with additional support for upholding the Director’s determination that Strege poses a continued risk to FINRA arbitration participants, as Strege’s filings on appeal repeatedly reference death, including mass casualty incidents. On appeal, Strege also asserts that FINRA could conduct hearings “100% electronic[ally]”, which would mitigate any possible risk he might pose. But the Commission has previously found that FINRA reasonably concluded that even holding hearings remotely would not sufficiently mitigate the risk that Strege poses because he would still learn identifying information about other forum participants. We again find the Director’s decision to deny Strege access to the arbitration forum was reasonable, even if the arbitration proceedings could be held remotely. Strege additionally embeds in his brief a federal court order granting the government’s motion to dismiss the misdemeanor criminal case that had been brought against Strege based on his alleged bomb threat. But he provides no explanation for why the dismissal provides a basis for granting his petition. And the subsequent history of that dismissal order shows that it resulted from “the district court’s ruling that he was incompetent to stand trial.” That dismissal therefore does not remove concerns about Strege’s threat to the health and safety of others. See Strege III, 2025 WL 3757894, at *2 (upholding FINRA’s denial of use of the forum as to Strege’s third statement of claim where he did not disavow earlier statements about violence or provide other reasons to believe he was no longer a safety threat). Strege II, 2024 WL 4581676, at *4. Judgment of Dismissal, United States v. Strege, 3:19-mj-01000 (D.P.R. Aug. 14, 2020), ECF No. 115. United States v. Strege, No. 20-1701, 2021 WL 4520635, at *1 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2021) (dismissing as moot Strege’s appeal of “the district court’s ruling that he was incompetent to stand trial and the resulting dismissal of all charges against him”); see also Minute Entry, Strege, 3:19-mj-01000, ECF No. 110 (D.P.R. Aug. 10, 2020) (minute entry for district court’s incompetency finding); Rule of Practice 323, 17 C.F.R. § 201.323 (governing official notice).

We further find that, in denying Strege access to the arbitration forum, Rule 12203(a) is, and was applied consistently with, the Exchange Act’s purposes because it is in the public interest to protect the safety of the participants in FINRA’s arbitration forum. B. We set aside FINRA’s prospective denial of a forum for future statements of claim. The Director’s decision also stated that he was denying use of the arbitration forum for any future statements of claim that Strege might bring, and FINRA would no longer respond to any of Strege’s filings in this or any future case. We conclude that FINRA cannot, consistent with its rules, prospectively deprive Strege of access to its arbitration forum without any screening of his claims or other filings. The Director’s decision indicated his preemptive denial of access was done “pursuant to FINRA Rule 12203” and FINRA’s prior orders denying Strege access to its forum for earlier statements of claim. But while Rule 12203 provides that the Director may decline to permit access to the arbitration forum if “accepting the matter would pose a risk to the health or safety of” participants in the forum (emphasis added), the rule contains no provision empowering the Director to prospectively and permanently bar an individual from the forum, as the Director’s order would effectively do here. The rule thus requires FINRA to evaluate each statement of claim on a matter-by-matter basis. Rule 12203 does not provide that the Director may preemptively bar Strege from filing any future claims. In presenting a future matter, Strege could base a new statement of claim on new support or circumstances showing that the matter would no longer present a health or safety risk. Although Strege has not yet filed such a claim, See Exchange Act Section 15A(b)(6), 15 U.S.C. § 78o-3(b)(6) (providing that FINRA’s rules must be designed “to protect investors and the public interest”); Strege III, 2025 WL 3757894, at *3; Strege II, 2024 WL 4581676, at *4. See, e.g., Strege II, 2024 WL 4581676, at *4 (concluding that the Director reasonably assessed each statement of claim). Cf. Strege III, 2025 WL 3757894, at *2 (upholding Director’s decision to deny use of forum in part because Strege had not “disavowed his earlier statements about violence, or otherwise provided any basis . . . to conclude that he was no longer a threat given his history”).

we find that the Director’s order foreclosing Strege from even pursuing that possibility in the future is inconsistent with FINRA Rule 12203. We therefore set that aspect of the Director’s action aside. Accordingly, we dismiss in part Strege’s application for review in part and set aside in part the Director’s action. An appropriate order will issue. By the Commission (Chairman ATKINS and Commissioners PEIRCE and UYEDA). Vanessa A. Countryman Secretary We have considered all of the parties’ contentions. We have rejected or sustained them to the extent that they are inconsistent or in accord with the views expressed in this opinion.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 104974 / March 11, 2026 Admin. Proc. File No. 3-22397 In the Matter of the Application of ADAM STREGE For Review of Action Taken by FINRA ORDER DISMISSING IN PART APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND SETTING ASIDE IN PART ACTION TAKEN BY REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION On the basis of the Commission’s opinion issued this day, it is ORDERED that the application for review filed by Adam Strege is dismissed in part; and it is further ORDERED that the Director’s action prospectively denying Strege access to FINRA’s arbitration forum as to all future statements of claim is set aside. By the Commission. Vanessa A. Countryman Secretary