Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Price Improvement Mechanism, 30987-30988 [E8-11931]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Notices
has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2001.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Empire of
Carolina, Inc. because it has not filed
any periodic reports since the period
ended September 30, 2000.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Genfinity
Corp. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
December 31, 2000.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of GSI
Securitization Ltd. (n/k/a GSI
Securitization, Inc.) because it has not
filed any periodic reports since the
period ended September 30, 2003.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Interliant,
Inc. (n/k/a I Successor Corp.) because it
has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended December 31, 2002.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Namibian
Minerals Corp. because it has not filed
any periodic reports since the period
ended March 31, 2001.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Nix Co.,
Ltd. (n/k/a Global Energy Resources,
Inc.) because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
December 31, 1999.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Number
Nine Visual Technology Corp. (n/k/a
International Precious Minerals Group,
Inc.) because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended
October 2, 1999.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of NVID
International, Inc. because it has not
filed any periodic reports since the
period ended June 30, 2001.
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of Oncor, Inc.
because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30,
1999.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:45 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
It appears to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there is a
lack of current and accurate information
concerning the securities of USCI, Inc.
because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30,
2001.
The Commission is of the opinion that
the public interest and the protection of
investors require a suspension of trading
in the securities of the above-listed
companies.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to
Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, that trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies,
including but not limited to the debt
securities of e.Spire Communications,
Inc., is suspended for the period from
9:30 a.m. EDT on May 27, 2008, through
11:59 p.m. EDT on June 9, 2008.
By the Commission.
Florence Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 08–1307 Filed 5–27–08; 11:37 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–57847; File No. SR–ISE–
2008–29]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Price
Improvement Mechanism
May 21, 2008.
I. Introduction
On March 20, 2008, the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (‘‘ISE’’) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant
to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule
19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule
change to allow members to enter orders
into the Price Improvement Mechanism
(‘‘PIM’’) at a price that matches the
national best bid or offer (‘‘NBBO’’)
when the ISE market is inferior to the
NBBO. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal
Register on April 14, 2008.3 The
Commission received one comment
letter regarding the proposal.4 This
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57632
(April 8, 2008), 73 FR 20079.
4 See letter from Lisa J. Fall, General Counsel,
Boston Options Exchange (‘‘BOX’’), to Nancy M.
Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated May 14, 2007
(‘‘BOX Comment’’).
2 17
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30987
order approves the proposed rule
change.
II. Description of the Proposal
The PIM currently allows certain ISE
members to enter two-sided orders
(‘‘Crossing Transaction’’) for execution
at a price that improves upon the
NBBO.5 The customer side of these
orders is then exposed to other members
to give them an opportunity to
participate in the trade at the proposed
cross price or better. The Exchange
proposes to extend the application of
the PIM to permit a member to enter an
order (‘‘Agency Order’’) into the PIM at
a price that is equal to the NBBO when
the ISE’s best bid or offer (‘‘ISE BBO’’)
is inferior to the NBBO. When the ISE
BBO equals the NBBO, the member will
continue to be required to enter a price
at least one cent better than the NBBO.6
The Commission received one
comment letter regarding the proposed
rule change.7 The commenter expresses
concern that ISE’s proposal would lead
to greater rates of internalization and
reduced amounts of price improvement
being made available to public
customers on ISE, especially to small
orders under 50 contracts.8 The
commenter further believes that the
proposal would reduce the incentive for
market participants to quote at the
NBBO on ISE.9
III. Discussion and Commission
Findings
After carefully considering the
proposal and the comment submitted,
the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to
a national securities exchange 10 and, in
particular, the requirements of section 6
of the Act.11 Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with section
6(b)(5) of the Act,12 which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market
and a national market system and, in
5 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50819
(December 8, 2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15,
2004) (approving rules implementing the PIM).
6 See ISE Rule 723(b)(1).
7 See BOX Comment, supra note 4.
8 Id. at 1 and 5.
9 Id. at 4.
10 In approving this proposed rule change the
Commission has considered the proposed rule’s
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
11 15 U.S.C. 78f.
12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
30988
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Notices
general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
The Commission believes that the
proposal will continue to provide
customers with an opportunity for price
improvement over the NBBO. The
Commission notes that once a Crossing
Transaction is submitted into the PIM
auction, the Crossing Transaction may
not be cancelled.13 Therefore, the
Agency Order submitted to the PIM
auction when ISE’s BBO is not equal to
the NBBO will be guaranteed an
execution price of at least the NBBO
and, moreover, will be given an
opportunity for execution at a price
better than the NBBO.
The Commission does not agree with
the concerns raised by the commenter.
Under the proposal, the PIM will
continue to provide an opportunity for
customer orders to receive an execution
at a price better than NBBO. All orders
entered into the PIM will continue to be
exposed to all ISE members before the
submitting member can execute against
the Agency Order. Moreover, the
Commission believes the proposal may
increase the likelihood of members
entering Agency Orders into the PIM
because the member will only be
required to guarantee an execution at
the NBBO when ISE’s BBO is not equal
to the NBBO, which would provide
additional customer orders an
opportunity for price improvement over
the NBBO. The proposal also may
encourage increased participation in a
PIM by ISE members willing to trade
with an agency order at the NBBO but
not better than the NBBO. Increased
participation by ISE members would
decrease the proportion of an Agency
Order that would be internalized by the
submitting member.14
The Commission thus believes that
ISE’s proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
section 19(b)(2) of the Act,15 that the
proposed rule change (File No. SR–ISE–
2008–29), be, and it hereby is, approved.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.16
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–11931 Filed 5–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
13 See
ISE Rule 723(b)(3).
ISE Rule 723(d)(4).
15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
16 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
14 See
17:45 May 28, 2008
[Release No. 34–57844; File No. SR–Phlx–
2008–39]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Permanent
Approval of the Exchange’s Directed
Order Program
May 21, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on May 20,
2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange,
Inc. (‘‘Phlx’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II, below, which Items have
been substantially prepared by the Phlx.
The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested
persons and is approving the proposal
on an accelerated basis.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The Phlx proposes to adopt, on a
permanent basis, a pilot program
concerning Exchange Rule 1080,
Philadelphia Stock Exchange
Automated Options Market (AUTOM) 3
and Automatic Execution System
(AUTO–X), and Exchange Rule 1014,
Obligations And Restrictions Applicable
To Specialists And Registered Options
Traders. Specifically, the current pilot
program covers: (1) Exchange Rule
1080(l), Directed Orders, under which
Exchange specialists, Streaming Quote
Traders (‘‘SQTs’’),4 and Remote
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 AUTOM is the Exchange’s electronic order
delivery, routing, execution, and reporting system,
which provides for the automatic entry and routing
of equity option and index option orders to the
Exchange trading floor. Orders delivered through
AUTOM may be executed manually, or certain
orders are eligible for AUTOM’s automatic
execution features. Equity option and index option
specialists are required by the Exchange to
participate in AUTOM and its features and
enhancements. Option orders entered by Exchange
members into AUTOM are routed to the appropriate
specialist unit on the Exchange trading floor.
AUTOM is today more commonly referred to as
Phlx XL. See Exchange Rule 1080.
4 An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options
Trader who has received permission from the
Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through an electronic interface with
AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary
electronic quoting device in eligible options to
which such SQT is assigned. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(A).
2 17
IV. Conclusion
VerDate Aug<31>2005
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Streaming Quote Traders (‘‘RSQTs’’) 5
trading on the Exchange’s electronic
options trading platform, Phlx XL,6
receive Directed Orders (as defined
below); and (2) Exchange Rule
1014(g)(viii), which sets forth the trade
allocation algorithm for electronically
executed and allocated trades involving
Directed Orders. This proposal is in
connection with a pilot program that is
currently scheduled to expire on May
27, 2008.7 The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Phlx, the
Commission’s Public Reference Room,
and https://www.phlx.com/exchange/
phlx_rule_fil.html.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission, the
Phlx included statements concerning
the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed
rule change. The text of these statements
may be examined at the places specified
in Item III below. The Phlx has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to adopt, on a permanent
basis, a pilot that: (i) permits specialists,
SQTs, and RSQTs assigned in options
that trade on Phlx XL to receive directed
orders (‘‘Directed Orders’’) 8 from a
member or member organization
(‘‘Order Flow Provider’’ or ‘‘OFP’’) 9 that
submits, as agent, a customer order to
the Exchange electronically, and (ii)
establishes a trade allocation algorithm
for Directed Orders that are
electronically executed and allocated to
reward such Directed Specialists, SQTs,
5 An RSQT is a participant in the Exchange’s
electronic trading system, Phlx XL, who has
received permission from the Exchange to trade in
options for his own account and to generate and
submit option quotations electronically from off the
floor of the Exchange through AUTOM in eligible
options to which such RSQT has been assigned. See
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B).
6 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50100
(July 27, 2004), 69 FR 46612 (August 3, 2004) (SR–
Phlx–2003–59).
7 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55803
(May 23, 2007), 72 FR 30413 (May 31, 2007) (SR–
Phlx–2007–37).
8 See Exchange Rule 1080(l)(i)(A).
9 See Exchange Rule 1080(l)(i)(B).
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 104 (Thursday, May 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30987-30988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11931]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-57847; File No. SR-ISE-2008-29]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Price
Improvement Mechanism
May 21, 2008.
I. Introduction
On March 20, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to allow members to enter orders into the Price
Improvement Mechanism (``PIM'') at a price that matches the national
best bid or offer (``NBBO'') when the ISE market is inferior to the
NBBO. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on April 14, 2008.\3\ The Commission received one comment
letter regarding the proposal.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57632 (April 8,
2008), 73 FR 20079.
\4\ See letter from Lisa J. Fall, General Counsel, Boston
Options Exchange (``BOX''), to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary,
Commission, dated May 14, 2007 (``BOX Comment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposal
The PIM currently allows certain ISE members to enter two-sided
orders (``Crossing Transaction'') for execution at a price that
improves upon the NBBO.\5\ The customer side of these orders is then
exposed to other members to give them an opportunity to participate in
the trade at the proposed cross price or better. The Exchange proposes
to extend the application of the PIM to permit a member to enter an
order (``Agency Order'') into the PIM at a price that is equal to the
NBBO when the ISE's best bid or offer (``ISE BBO'') is inferior to the
NBBO. When the ISE BBO equals the NBBO, the member will continue to be
required to enter a price at least one cent better than the NBBO.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50819 (December 8,
2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15, 2004) (approving rules implementing
the PIM).
\6\ See ISE Rule 723(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received one comment letter regarding the proposed
rule change.\7\ The commenter expresses concern that ISE's proposal
would lead to greater rates of internalization and reduced amounts of
price improvement being made available to public customers on ISE,
especially to small orders under 50 contracts.\8\ The commenter further
believes that the proposal would reduce the incentive for market
participants to quote at the NBBO on ISE.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See BOX Comment, supra note 4.
\8\ Id. at 1 and 5.
\9\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Commission Findings
After carefully considering the proposal and the comment submitted,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange \10\ and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6 of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in
[[Page 30988]]
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the proposal will continue to provide
customers with an opportunity for price improvement over the NBBO. The
Commission notes that once a Crossing Transaction is submitted into the
PIM auction, the Crossing Transaction may not be cancelled.\13\
Therefore, the Agency Order submitted to the PIM auction when ISE's BBO
is not equal to the NBBO will be guaranteed an execution price of at
least the NBBO and, moreover, will be given an opportunity for
execution at a price better than the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ISE Rule 723(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission does not agree with the concerns raised by the
commenter. Under the proposal, the PIM will continue to provide an
opportunity for customer orders to receive an execution at a price
better than NBBO. All orders entered into the PIM will continue to be
exposed to all ISE members before the submitting member can execute
against the Agency Order. Moreover, the Commission believes the
proposal may increase the likelihood of members entering Agency Orders
into the PIM because the member will only be required to guarantee an
execution at the NBBO when ISE's BBO is not equal to the NBBO, which
would provide additional customer orders an opportunity for price
improvement over the NBBO. The proposal also may encourage increased
participation in a PIM by ISE members willing to trade with an agency
order at the NBBO but not better than the NBBO. Increased participation
by ISE members would decrease the proportion of an Agency Order that
would be internalized by the submitting member.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See ISE Rule 723(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission thus believes that ISE's proposal is consistent with
the requirements of the Act.
IV. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ISE-2008-29), be,
and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11931 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
