Gallagher

MEMORANDUM

Substantial evidence supports the Security and Exchange Commission’s (“Commission’s”) finding that Gliksman engaged in unsuitable trading in Wilshire-Dayton’s account in violation of NASD Rules of Conduct 2110 and 2310 and that Gallagher failed to appropriately supervise Gliksman in violation of NASD Rules of Conduct 2110 and 3010 with or without Hanamoto’s testimony uncross-examined testimony. Hearsay statements may constitute substantial evidence supportive of a finding if they are probative and rehable. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 , 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1428 , 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). Hanamoto’s arbitration testimony, affidavit and declaration were both probative and because corroborated by other evidence, rehable, and thus constituted substantial evidence supportive of the Commission’s finding that Wilshire-Dayton’s investment objectives were low-risk and that Gliksmaris trading was unsuitably excessive in hght of the company’s objectives.

In any event, substantial evidence independent of Hanamoto’s uncross-examined hearsay statements supports the Commission’s finding. Gliksman testified that Wilshire-Dayton’s investment objective was to “make money…