Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 4360 (Fidelity Bonds) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook, 72850-72855 [2010-29727]
Download as PDF
72850
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Notices
2010, applicant transferred its assets to
Pioneer Select Mid Cap Growth Fund, a
series of Pioneer Series Trust I, based on
net asset value. Expenses of
approximately $142,776 incurred in
connection with the reorganization were
paid by applicant, the acquiring fund,
and Pioneer Investment Management,
Inc., applicant’s investment adviser.
Filing Date: The application was filed
on November 2, 2010.
Applicant’s Address: 60 State St.,
Boston, MA 02109.
MONY America Variable Account S
[File No. 811–5100]
Summary: Applicant seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an
investment company. Applicant
requests deregistration based on
abandonment of registration. Applicant
is not now engaged, or intending to
engage, in any business activities other
than those necessary for winding up its
affairs.
Filing Dates: The application was
filed on October 22, 2010, and amended
on November 15, 2010.
Applicant’s Address: 1290 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10104.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Investment Management, pursuant to
delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–29725 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–63340, File No. SR–MSRB–
2010–09]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Granting Approval of
Proposed Rule Change Consisting of
Fee Changes to Its Real-Time
Transaction Price Service and
Comprehensive Transaction Price
Service, and Termination of its T+1
Transaction Price Service
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
November 18, 2010.
I. Introduction
On September 30, 2010, the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(‘‘MSRB’’ or ‘‘Board’’), filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’),1 and Rule
19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule
change relating to the MSRB’s Real-time
1 15
2 17
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
Transaction Reporting System (‘‘RTRS’’).
The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal
Register on October 18, 2010.3 The
Commission received no comment
letters about the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule
change.
II. Description of the Proposed Rule
Change
The proposed rule change consists of
fee changes to the MSRB’s Real-Time
Transaction Price Service and
Comprehensive Transaction Price
Service of RTRS and the consolidation
into the Comprehensive Transaction
Price Service of its existing T+1
Transaction Price Service. In addition,
the proposed rule change would change
the name of the Real-Time Transaction
Price Service to the ‘‘MSRB Real-Time
Transaction Data Subscription Service’’
and would change the name of the
Comprehensive Transaction Price
Service to the ‘‘MSRB Comprehensive
Transaction Data Subscription Service.’’
The MSRB proposes an effective date for
this proposed rule change of January 1,
2011.
A more complete description of the
proposal is contained in the
Commission’s Notice.
III. Discussion and Commission
Findings
The Commission has carefully
considered the proposed rule change
and finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the requirements of
the Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the
MSRB 4 and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of
the Exchange Act 5 and the rules and
regulations thereunder. Section
15B(b)(2)(J) of the Exchange Act
requires, in pertinent part, that the
MSRB’s rules shall:
Provide that each municipal securities
broker, municipal securities dealer, and
municipal advisor shall pay to the Board
such reasonable fees and charges as may be
necessary or appropriate to defray the costs
and expenses of operating and administering
the Board. Such rules shall specify the
amount of such fees and charges.
The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with
the Exchange Act because the proposed
rule change provides for commercially
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63089
(October 13, 2010), 75 FR 63883 (the ‘‘Commission’s
Notice’’).
4 In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission notes that it has considered the
proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
5 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(J).
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reasonable fees to partially offset costs
associated with operating RTRS and
producing and disseminating
transaction reports to subscribers. The
proposal will become effective January
1, 2011, as requested by the MSRB.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,6
that the proposed rule change (SR–
MSRB–2010–09), be, and it hereby is,
approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.7
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–29720 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–63331; File No. SR–FINRA–
2010–059]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 4360 (Fidelity Bonds) in
the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook
November 17, 2010.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’
or ‘‘Exchange Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4
thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that
on November 10, 2010, Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(‘‘FINRA’’) (f/k/a National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (‘‘NASD’’)) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 3020 (Fidelity Bonds) with certain
changes into the consolidated FINRA
rulebook as FINRA Rule 4360 (Fidelity
Bonds), taking into account
Incorporated NYSE Rule 319 (Fidelity
Bonds) and its Interpretation.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on FINRA’s Web site at
https://www.finra.org, at the principal
6 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 15 U.S.C. 78a.
3 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
7 17
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
26NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Notices
office of FINRA and at the
Commission’s Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission,
FINRA 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 IV below. FINRA 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
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
As part of the process of developing
a new consolidated rulebook
(‘‘Consolidated FINRA Rulebook’’),4
FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 3020 as FINRA Rule 4360 (Fidelity
Bonds), taking into account NYSE Rule
319 (and its Interpretation).5 Proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would update and
clarify the fidelity bond requirements
and better reflect current industry
practices. Unless otherwise noted
below, the provisions in NASD Rule
3020 would transfer, subject only to
non-substantive changes, as part of
proposed FINRA Rule 4360.
NASD Rule 3020 and NYSE Rule 319
(and its Interpretation) generally require
members to maintain minimum
amounts of fidelity bond coverage for
officers and employees, and that such
coverage address losses incurred due to
certain specified events. The purpose of
a fidelity bond is to protect a member
against certain types of losses,
including, but not limited to, those
caused by the malfeasance of its officers
and employees, and the effect of such
losses on the member’s capital.
4 The current FINRA rulebook consists of: (1)
FINRA Rules; (2) NASD Rules; and (3) rules
incorporated from NYSE (‘‘Incorporated NYSE
Rules’’) (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated
NYSE Rules are referred to as the ‘‘Transitional
Rulebook’’). While the NASD Rules generally apply
to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that
are also members of the NYSE (‘‘Dual Members’’).
The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA members,
unless such rules have a more limited application
by their terms. For more information about the
rulebook consolidation process, see Information
Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook Consolidation
Process).
5 For convenience, the Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the NYSE Rules.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
General Provision
NASD Rule 3020(a) generally
provides that each member required to
join the Securities Investor Protection
Corporation (‘‘SIPC’’) that has employees
and that is not a member in good
standing of one of the enumerated
national securities exchanges must
maintain fidelity bond coverage; NYSE
Rule 319(a) generally requires member
organizations doing business with the
public to carry fidelity bonds. Like
NASD Rule 3020, proposed FINRA Rule
4360 would require each member that is
required to join SIPC to maintain
blanket fidelity bond coverage with
specified amounts of coverage based on
the member’s net capital requirement,
with certain exceptions.
NASD Rule 3020(a)(1) requires
members to maintain a blanket fidelity
bond in a form substantially similar to
the standard form of Brokers Blanket
Bond promulgated by the Surety
Association of America. Under NYSE
Rule 319(a), the Stockbrokers
Partnership Bond and the Brokers
Blanket Bond approved by the NYSE are
the only bond forms that may be used
by a member organization; NYSE
approval is required for any variation
from such forms. Proposed FINRA Rule
4360 would require members to
maintain fidelity bond coverage that
provides for per loss coverage without
an aggregate limit of liability. Members
may apply for this level of coverage
with any product that meets these
requirements, including the Securities
Dealer Blanket Bond (‘‘SDBB’’) or a
properly endorsed Financial Institution
Form 14 Bond (‘‘Form 14’’).6
Most fidelity bonds contain a
definition of the term ‘‘loss’’ (or ‘‘single
loss’’), for purposes of the bond, which
generally includes all covered losses
resulting from any one act or a series of
related acts. A payment by an insurer
for covered losses attributed to a ‘‘single
loss’’ does not reduce a member’s
coverage amount for losses attributed to
other, separate acts. A fidelity bond
with an aggregate limit of liability caps
a member’s coverage during the bond
period at a certain amount if a loss (or
losses) meets this aggregate threshold.
FINRA believes that per loss coverage
without an aggregate limit of liability
provides firms with the most beneficial
coverage since the bond amount cannot
be exhausted by one or more covered
6 Since 1982, firms electing to acquire coverage
through the FINRA-sponsored Insurance Program
(‘‘Sponsored Program’’) have been provided with the
SDBB. It is the ‘‘default’’ insurance for FINRA
members in that when a firm completes the
application for the Sponsored Program, they are
applying for the SDBB.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72851
losses, so it will be available for future
losses during the bond period.
Under proposed FINRA Rule 4360, a
member’s fidelity bond must provide
against loss and have Insuring
Agreements covering at least the
following: fidelity, on premises, in
transit, forgery and alteration, securities
and counterfeit currency. The proposed
rule change modifies the descriptive
headings for these Insuring Agreements,
in part, from NASD Rule 3020(a)(1) and
NYSE Rule 319(d) to align them with
the headings in the current bond forms
available to broker-dealers. FINRA has
been advised by insurance industry
representatives that the proposed rule
change does not substantively change
what is required to be covered by the
bond.7
In addition, proposed FINRA Rule
4360 would eliminate the specific
coverage provisions in NASD Rule
3020(a)(4) and (a)(5), and NYSE Rule
319(d)(ii)(B) and (C), and (e)(ii)(B) and
(C), that permit less than 100 percent of
coverage for certain Insuring
Agreements (i.e., fraudulent trading and
securities forgery) to require that
coverage for all Insuring Agreements be
equal to 100 percent of the firm’s
minimum required bond coverage.
Members may elect to carry additional,
optional Insuring Agreements not
required by proposed FINRA Rule 4360
for an amount less than 100 percent of
the minimum required bond coverage.
Like NASD Rule 3020(a)(1)(H) and
NYSE Rule 319.12, proposed FINRA
Rule 4360 would require that a
member’s fidelity bond include a
cancellation rider providing that the
insurer will use its best efforts to
promptly notify FINRA in the event the
bond is cancelled, terminated or
‘‘substantially modified.’’ Also, the
proposed rule change would adopt the
definition of ‘‘substantially modified’’ in
NYSE Rule 319 and would incorporate
NYSE Rule 319.12’s standard that a firm
must immediately advise FINRA in
writing if its fidelity bond is cancelled,
terminated or substantially modified.8
FINRA is proposing to add
supplementary material to proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 that would require
members that do not qualify for a bond
with per loss coverage without an
aggregate limit of liability to secure
7 For example, previous versions of the SDBB and
Form 14 included a separate Insuring Agreement for
misplacement; however, in the current versions of
the bonds, this coverage is included in both ‘‘on
premises’’ and ‘‘in transit’’ coverage.
8 NYSE Rule 319 defines the term ‘‘substantially
modified’’ as any change in the type or amount of
fidelity bonding coverage, or in the exclusions to
which the bond is subject, or any other change in
the bond such that it no longer complies with the
requirements of the rule.
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
26NON1
72852
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Notices
alternative coverage. Specifically, a
member that does not qualify for blanket
fidelity bond coverage as required by
proposed FINRA Rule 4360(a)(3) would
be required to maintain substantially
similar fidelity bond coverage in
compliance with all other provisions of
the proposed rule, provided that the
member maintains written
correspondence from two insurance
providers stating that the member does
not qualify for the coverage required by
proposed FINRA Rule 4360(a)(3). The
member would be required to retain
such correspondence for the period
specified by Exchange Act Rule 17a–
4(b)(4). FINRA has been advised by
insurance industry representatives that
the proposed alternative coverage
requirement is necessary for firms that,
for example, have had a covered loss
paid by an insurer within the past five
years or firms that may present certain
risk factors that would prevent an
insurer from offering per loss coverage
without an aggregate limit of liability.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Minimum Required Coverage
NASD Rule 3020 requires fidelity
bond coverage for officers and
employees of a member. Under NASD
Rule 3020(e), the term ‘‘employee’’ or
‘‘employees’’ means any person or
persons associated with a member firm
(as defined in Article I, paragraph (rr) of
the FINRA By-Laws) except: (1) Sole
proprietors, (2) sole stockholders and (3)
directors or trustees of a member who
are not performing acts coming within
the scope of the usual duties of an
officer or employee. Under NYSE Rule
319(a), any member organization doing
business with the public must maintain
fidelity bond coverage for general
partners or officers and its employees.9
Proposed FINRA Rule 4360, similar to
NASD Rule 3020 and NYSE Rule 319,
would require each member to
maintain, at a minimum, fidelity bond
coverage for any person associated with
the member, except directors or trustees
of a member who are not performing
acts within the scope of the usual duties
of an officer or employee. As further
detailed below, the proposed rule
change would eliminate the exemption
in NASD Rule 3020 for sole
stockholders and sole proprietors.
9 Under NYSE Rule Interpretation 319/02
(Additional Coverages), the required coverage of the
Brokers Blanket Bond must apply, through rider or
otherwise, as applicable to: all domestic and foreign
guaranteed and non-guaranteed affiliates,
subsidiaries and branches; bearer instruments if the
member organization handles such securities;
limited partners of a member firm if they are also
employees; and the partners, officers and
employees or person acting in a similar capacity of
electronic data processing agencies in their
activities on behalf of the member organizations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
The proposed rule change would
increase the minimum required fidelity
bond coverage for members, while
continuing to base the coverage on a
member’s net capital requirement. To
that end, proposed FINRA Rule 4360
would require a member with a net
capital requirement that is less than
$250,000 to maintain minimum
coverage of the greater of 120 percent of
the firm’s required net capital under
Exchange Act Rule 15c3–1 or $100,000.
The increase to $100,000 would modify
the present minimum requirement of
$25,000. FINRA believes this increase is
warranted since the NASD and NYSE
fidelity bond rules have not been
materially modified since their
adoption—over 30 years ago—and
$25,000 in 1974 (the year the NASD rule
was adopted) is equal to approximately
$110,000 today (adjusted for inflation).
Although members may experience a
slight increase in costs for their
premiums under the proposed rule
change, FINRA believes that the
proposed amendments to the fidelity
bond minimum requirements are
necessary to provide meaningful and
practical coverage for losses covered by
the bond.
Under proposed FINRA Rule 4360,
members with a net capital requirement
of at least $250,000 would use a table
in the rule to determine their minimum
fidelity bond coverage requirement. The
table is a modified version of the tables
in NASD Rule 3020(a)(3) and NYSE
Rule 319(e)(i). The identical NASD and
NYSE requirements for members that
have a minimum net capital
requirement that exceeds $1 million
would be retained in proposed FINRA
Rule 4360; however, the proposed rule
would adopt the higher requirements in
NYSE Rule 319(e)(i) for a member with
a net capital requirement of at least
$250,000, but less than $1 million.10
Under the proposed rule, the entire
amount of a member’s minimum
required coverage must be available for
covered losses and may not be eroded
by the costs an insurer may incur if it
chooses to defend a claim. Specifically,
any defense costs for covered losses
must be in addition to a member’s
minimum coverage requirements. A
member may include defense costs as
part of its fidelity bond coverage, but
only to the extent that it does not reduce
10 For example, NASD Rule 3020 requires a small
clearing and carrying firm (i.e., one subject to a
$250,000 net capital requirement) to obtain
$300,000 in coverage. The same firm, had it been
designated to NYSE, would have needed $600,000
in coverage. FINRA believes the increased coverage
requirements are appropriate given the larger
number/amount of claims that can be satisfied at
these levels.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a member’s minimum required coverage
under the proposed rule.
Deductible Provision
Under NASD Rule 3020(b), a
deductible provision may be included
in a member’s bond of up to $5,000 or
10 percent of the member’s minimum
insurance requirement, whichever is
greater. If a member desires to maintain
coverage in excess of the minimum
insurance requirement, then a
deductible provision may be included
in the bond of up to $5,000 or 10
percent of the amount of blanket
coverage provided in the bond
purchased, whichever is greater. The
excess of any such deductible amount
over the maximum permissible
deductible amount based on the
member’s minimum required coverage
must be deducted from the member’s
net worth in the calculation of the
member’s net capital for purposes of
Exchange Act Rule 15c3–1. Where the
member is a subsidiary of another
member, the excess may be deducted
from the parent’s rather than the
subsidiary’s net worth, but only if the
parent guarantees the subsidiary’s net
capital in writing.
Under NYSE Rule 319(b), each
member organization may self-insure to
the extent of $10,000 or 10 percent of its
minimum insurance requirement as
fixed by the NYSE, whichever is greater,
for each type of coverage required by the
rule. Self-insurance in amounts
exceeding the above maximum may be
permitted by the NYSE provided the
member or member organization
certifies to the satisfaction of the NYSE
that it is unable to obtain greater
bonding coverage, and agrees to reduce
its self-insurance so as to comply with
the above stated limits as soon as
possible, and appropriate charges to
capital are made pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 15c3–1. This provision also
contains identical language to the NASD
rule regarding net worth deductions for
subsidiaries.
Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would
provide for an allowable deductible
amount of up to 25 percent of the
fidelity bond coverage purchased by a
member. Any deductible amount
elected by the firm that is greater than
10 percent of the coverage purchased by
the member 11 would be deducted from
the member’s net worth in the
calculation of its net capital for
purposes of Exchange Act Rule 15c3–
1.12 Like the NASD and NYSE rules, if
11 FINRA notes that a member may elect, subject
to availability, a deductible of less than 10 percent
of the coverage purchased.
12 NASD Rule 3020 bases the deduction from net
worth for an excess deductible on a firm’s
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
26NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Notices
the member is a subsidiary of another
FINRA member, this amount may be
deducted from the parent’s rather than
the subsidiary’s net worth, but only if
the parent guarantees the subsidiary’s
net capital in writing.
Annual Review of Coverage
Consistent with NASD Rule 3020(c)
and NYSE Rule 319.10, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would require a
member (including a firm that signs a
multi-year insurance policy), annually
as of the yearly anniversary date of the
issuance of the fidelity bond, to review
the adequacy of its fidelity bond
coverage and make any required
adjustments to its coverage, as set forth
in the proposed rule. Under proposed
FINRA Rule 4360(d), a member’s
highest net capital requirement during
the preceding 12-month period, based
on the applicable method of computing
net capital (dollar minimum, aggregate
indebtedness or alternative standard),
would be used as the basis for
determining the member’s minimum
required fidelity bond coverage for the
succeeding 12-month period. The
‘‘preceding 12-month period’’ includes
the 12-month period that ends 60 days
before the yearly anniversary date of a
member’s fidelity bond. This would give
a firm time to determine its required
fidelity bond coverage by the
anniversary date of the bond.
Similar to NASD Rule 3020(c)(2),
proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would allow
a member that has only been in business
for one year and elected the aggregate
indebtedness ratio for calculating its net
capital requirement to use, solely for the
purpose of determining the adequacy of
its fidelity bond coverage for its second
year, the 15 to 1 ratio of aggregate
indebtedness to net capital in lieu of the
8 to 1 ratio (required for broker-dealers
in their first year of business) to
calculate its net capital requirement.
Notwithstanding the above, such
member would not be permitted to carry
less minimum fidelity bond coverage in
its second year than it carried in its first
year.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Exemptions
Based in part on NASD Rule 3020(a),
proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would
exempt from the fidelity bond
requirements members in good standing
with a national securities exchange that
maintain a fidelity bond subject to the
requirements of such exchange that are
equal to or greater than the requirements
minimum required coverage, while proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would base such deduction from
net worth on coverage purchased by the member.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
set forth in the proposed rule.13
Additionally, consistent with NYSE
Rule Interpretation 319/01, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would continue to
exempt from the fidelity bond
requirements any firm that acts solely as
a Designated Market Maker (‘‘DMM’’),14
floor broker or registered floor trader
and does not conduct business with the
public.
Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would not
maintain the exemption in NASD Rule
3020(e) for a one-person firm.15
Historically, a sole proprietor or sole
stockholder member was excluded from
the fidelity bond requirements based
upon the assumption that such firms
were one-person shops and, therefore,
could not obtain coverage for their own
acts. FINRA has determined that sole
proprietors and sole stockholder firms
can and often do acquire fidelity bond
coverage, even though it is currently not
required, since all claims (irrespective
of firm size) are likely to be paid or
denied on a facts-and-circumstances
basis. Also, certain coverage areas of the
fidelity bond benefit a one-person shop
(e.g., those covering customer property
lost in transit).
FINRA understands that changes to a
firm’s fidelity bond policy, in
coordination with insurance providers,
may be impacted by bond renewal
cycles and changes required by the
insurance industry. FINRA will
consider such factors in establishing an
implementation date for the proposed
rule change upon approval by the SEC.
FINRA will announce the
implementation date of the proposed
rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be
published no later than 90 days
13 In general, the notification provisions of the
corresponding exchange rules (i.e., cancellation
rider and notification upon cancellation,
termination or substantial modification of the bond)
require notification to the respective exchange
rather than to FINRA. Accordingly, the practical
effect for a firm that avails itself of the proposed
exemption is that such firm must maintain a fidelity
bond subject to the same or greater requirements as
in proposed FINRA Rule 4360; however, such firm
would be exempt from the requirement that FINRA
be notified of changes to the bond and would
alternatively comply with the notification
provisions of the respective exchange.
14 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845
(October 24, 2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008)
(Order Approving File No. SR–NYSE–2008–46). In
this rule filing, the role of the specialist was altered
in certain respects and the term ‘‘specialist’’ was
replaced with the term ‘‘Designated Market Maker.’’
15 A one-person member (that is, a firm owned by
a sole proprietor or stockholder that has no other
associated persons, registered or unregistered) has
no ‘‘employees’’ for purposes of NASD Rule 3020,
and therefore such a firm currently is not subject
to the fidelity bonding requirements. Conversely, a
firm owned by a sole proprietor or stockholder that
has other associated persons has ‘‘employees’’ for
purposes of NASD Rule 3020, and currently is, and
will continue to be, subject to the fidelity bonding
requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72853
following Commission approval. The
implementation date will be no later
than 365 days following Commission
approval.
2. Statutory Basis
FINRA believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the provisions
of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,16 which
requires, among other things, that
FINRA rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the
proposed rule change will update and
clarify the requirements governing
fidelity bonds for adoption as FINRA
Rule 4360 in the Consolidated FINRA
Rulebook.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
FINRA does not believe that the
proposed rule change will result in any
burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants or Others
In July 2009, FINRA published
Regulatory Notice 09–44 (FINRA
Requests Comment on Proposed
Consolidated FINRA Rule Governing
Fidelity Bonds) requesting comment on
the proposed rule change. The comment
period expired on September 14, 2009.
Thirteen comment letters were received
in response to the Regulatory Notice. A
copy of the Regulatory Notice is
attached as Exhibit 2a to this rule filing.
A list of the commenters, and copies of
the comment letters, are attached as
Exhibit 2b to this rule filing.17
As originally proposed in Regulatory
Notice 09–44, FINRA Rule 4360
provided that any member that is
required to be a member of SIPC must
maintain fidelity bond coverage with
the SDBB, unless they are unable to
obtain this coverage, in which case they
may use the Form 14. Several
commenters noted that only a limited
number of insurance carriers offer the
SDBB, the standard form of which
provides per loss (i.e., per event)
coverage without an aggregate limit of
liability, and requested that FINRA
provide flexibility with respect to bond
16 15
U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).
references to commenters under this Item
are to the commenters as listed and defined in
Exhibit 2b.
17 All
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
26NON1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
72854
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Notices
forms under the proposed rule.18 These
commenters suggested that limiting the
bond form requirement to the SDBB
restricts competition among insurance
carriers, limits the potential of brokerdealers to secure superior coverage at
more favorable terms and is likely to
result in unfair pricing of such policies,
raising costs for firms. The commenters
further noted that the proposal creates
an uneven playing field in that it
promotes certain underwriters and
products to the disadvantage of others
that offer commensurate coverage, such
as a properly endorsed Form 14. One
commenter suggested that FINRA
amend the proposed rule to set forth the
parameters of the preferred bond form
instead of prescribing a particular
product.19
Many commenters noted that an
aggregate limit of liability is standard in
the industry and important to most
underwriters because it quantifies and
controls the underwriter’s maximum
exposure to loss during the bond
period.20 Further, the commenters noted
that without an aggregate limit of
liability, members’ premium costs are
likely to increase. Certain commenters
believe that a bond with a ‘‘restoration
of the aggregate’’ option is the equivalent
of ‘‘per event’’ coverage.21
In response to the comments, FINRA
made certain changes to the original
proposal. Specifically, FINRA has
amended the proposed rule to remove
the requirement that a member maintain
fidelity bond coverage with the SDBB,
and alternatively with the Form 14. As
detailed in the Purpose section of this
rule filing, the proposed rule would
require a member to maintain blanket
fidelity bond coverage with a bond that
would provide for per loss coverage
without an aggregate limit of liability
(e.g., the SDBB or a properly endorsed
Form 14). FINRA believes the
amendments to the proposal address the
issues noted by the commenters while
maintaining the aims of the proposed
rule to provide blanket per loss fidelity
bond coverage unrestricted by an
aggregate limit of liability. As noted in
detail in the Purpose section of this rule
filing, FINRA believes that a member’s
fidelity bond coverage should not
include an aggregate limit of liability
because it is important that a member’s
coverage not be eroded by covered
losses within the bond period, thus
exposing a member to future losses with
a reduced bond limit.
Additionally, FINRA has amended its
original proposal for alternative
coverage in the supplementary material
to the proposed rule to provide that a
member that does not qualify for blanket
fidelity bond coverage as required by
proposed FINRA Rule 4360(a)(3) must
maintain substantially similar fidelity
bond coverage in compliance with all
other provisions of the proposed rule,
provided that the member maintains
written correspondence from two
insurance providers stating that the
member does not qualify for the
coverage required by proposed FINRA
Rule 4360(a)(3). The member would be
required to retain such correspondence
for the period specified by Exchange Act
Rule 17a–4(b)(4).
One commenter agreed with FINRA’s
proposal to increase the minimum bond
limit requirement because losses often
exceed the current minimum bond
requirements, which exposes firms’ net
capital and, in some cases, results in a
SIPC liquidation proceeding.22 Other
commenters noted that the proposed
increased minimum requirements
remain inadequate.23 According to one
commenter, the proposed minimum
fidelity bond requirements do not meet
comparable limits of liability set for any
other insurable exposure in the
commercial marketplace and, when
registered representatives steal from
clients, the losses frequently range from
$250,000 to $5 million or more.24
Certain other commenters opposed
the increase in the minimum bond
requirement arguing that it will have a
disproportionately negative effect on
small firms, including small firms that
engage in certain business areas that
require a higher net capital amount.25
Two commenters requested that FINRA
provide specific data to justify why the
increased minimum fidelity bond
requirements are necessary.26 One
commenter suggested that the expansion
of the definition of ‘‘branch office’’ will
increase fees for securing fidelity bond
coverage.27
FINRA does not propose to make any
changes to the proposed minimum
requirements set forth in Regulatory
Notice 09–44. As stated above in the
Purpose section of this rule filing,
FINRA believes the increase in the
minimum fidelity bond requirements is
warranted since the NASD and NYSE
fidelity bond rules have not been
materially modified since their adoption
22 Travelers.
18 FFS,
Gallagher, HBHA, ISO, Kwiecinski, SFAA
and Travelers.
19 SFAA.
20 FFS, Kwiecinski, SFAA and Travelers.
21 Kwiecinski and SFAA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Nov 24, 2010
Jkt 223001
23 First
Asset and Gallagher.
24 Gallagher.
First Asset, HBHA and PCI.
Asset and Schriner.
27 First Asset.
over 30 years ago; members that have
maintained minimum coverage of
$25,000 have had claims that exceed
this amount; and notwithstanding a
slight increase in premium costs for
certain members under the proposed
rule change, the proposed amendments
are necessary to provide meaningful and
practical coverage for losses covered by
the bond. With respect to the comment
regarding the ‘‘branch office’’ definition,
FINRA notes that the proposed fidelity
bond rule does not implicate the
definition of ‘‘branch office.’’
Irrespective of FINRA’s definition of
‘‘branch office,’’ the insurance provider
makes the determination as to whether
the number of branch offices associated
with a member is a relevant criterion in
assessing a member’s fidelity bond
coverage and premiums. FINRA neither
imposes a requirement that insurance
providers use branch offices as a factor
in evaluating a member’s qualifications
to obtain fidelity bond coverage nor
does it require them to use its current
definition of branch office to make this
determination.
One commenter suggested that the
proposed rule require notification to
FINRA in the event that the member has
experienced a loss or losses that have
exhausted its fidelity bond coverage.28
FINRA did not make any changes to the
proposal in this respect because a bond
without an aggregate limit of liability by
its terms cannot be exhausted.
Two commenters suggested that
FINRA incorporate an exemption into
the proposed rule for firms that are a
subsidiary of a larger parent
organization.29 According to the
commenters, parent organizations of
members typically purchase their own
fidelity bonds, include the member
subsidiary as an insured under that
program, and provide substantially
greater coverage than the minimum
requirements under the proposed rule.
Moreover, the commenters believe that
the premiums paid for the FINRA bond
are an unnecessary expense since the
coverage already exists. The
commenters also noted that, in many
cases, a duplication of coverage
complicates loss settlements where the
bonds of both the member firm and its
parent organization are affected by a
single loss.
FINRA notes that neither the current
fidelity bond rule nor the proposed
fidelity bond rule precludes a member
from being part of its parent
organization’s fidelity bond coverage as
long as the coverage under the parent’s
bond provides equal to or greater
25 FGS,
26 First
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28 Kwiecinski.
29 Kwiecinski
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
and Travelers.
26NON1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Notices
coverage than the member’s minimum
required coverage under the rule. The
parent organization’s bond must contain
a rider that provides for the subsidiary
broker-dealer’s coverage by enumerating
the requirements of the FINRA rule and
providing for, at a minimum, the
subsidiary’s minimum required
coverage. Accordingly, FINRA does not
propose to amend the proposed rule in
this respect as it is unnecessary.
Two commenters urged FINRA to
maintain an exemption from the fidelity
bond requirements for one-person
firms.30 The commenters noted that
FINRA could be requiring coverage that
is not available in the marketplace,
since the alter ego concept applies to
fidelity bond claims for these entities.
As noted above in the Purpose section
of this rule filing, many one-person
firms currently maintain fidelity bond
coverage notwithstanding the
exemption in NASD Rule 3020, and
claims are likely to be paid based on a
facts-and-circumstances analysis, not on
a firm’s size or structure. As such,
FINRA is not proposing any changes to
the original proposal in this respect.
One commenter noted that the
proposed rule serves no purpose to
investors of the financial markets in its
application to small firms that do not
hold customer funds, execute
transactions in securities on public
markets, or engage in trading or
underwriting (e.g., a firm that solely
provides corporate financial advisory
services for fee income).31
FINRA believes that all members of
SIPC should maintain fidelity bond
coverage. FINRA does not agree with the
commenter’s assessment, since any firm
could be the target of malfeasance of one
of its employees. Thus, FINRA is not
proposing to incorporate an exemption
for these small firms.
One commenter encouraged FINRA to
incorporate a requirement for an
insuring agreement for Computer
Theft.32 FINRA did not amend the
proposal to add this insuring agreement
at this time; however, FINRA
understands that this coverage is
already included in most basic riders
obtained by members at no extra cost, so
a member will likely obtain this
coverage automatically as part of its
fidelity bond coverage.
One commenter supported increased
deductible thresholds; however, the
commenter suggested deleting the
haircut provision because the proposed
rule may discourage a firm from
pursuing or accepting higher
and Travelers.
Bay.
32 Travelers.
deductibles if it has to take a haircut in
its net capital computation for
deductibles over 10 percent.33 Another
commenter suggested that the annual
review requirement is duplicitous and
unnecessary and that the proposed rule
should speak solely to minimum bond
requirements for members.34 The
commenter noted that fidelity bond
reviews should be triggered by changes
in a firm’s net capital requirement and
not subject to an annual requirement,
since the firm would likely review how
any changes in net capital affect all
aspects of the firm when such changes
occur. FINRA did not make any
amendments to the proposal in these
areas as these concepts have not been
substantively amended from the legacy
NASD rule, and FINRA believes that
they are achieving their intended
purposes.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register or within such longer period (i)
as the Commission may designate up to
90 days of such date if it finds such
longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission
will:
(A) By order approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change, or (B)
institute proceedings to determine
whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:32 Nov 24, 2010
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–FINRA–2010–059. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if e-mail is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Web site (https://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed
rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will
also be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of
FINRA. All comments received will be
posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You
should submit only information that
you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–FINRA–2010–059 and
should be submitted on or before
December 17, 2010.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.35
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010–29727 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Electronic Comments
[Release No. 34–63341; File No. SR–
NASDAQ–2010–147]
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File
Number SR–FINRA–2010–059 on the
subject line.
Self-Regulatory Organizations; The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Modify Two
Aspects of the Rules and Operation of
The NASDAQ Options Market
November 18, 2010.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549–1090.
30 SFAA
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 November
10, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market
35 17
31 Akin
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.
33 Travelers.
1 15
34 IBI.
Jkt 223001
72855
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM
26NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72850-72855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29727]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-63331; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-059]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 4360 (Fidelity Bonds) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook
November 17, 2010.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\
notice is hereby given that on November 10, 2010, Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
\3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Rule 3020 (Fidelity Bonds) with
certain changes into the consolidated FINRA rulebook as FINRA Rule 4360
(Fidelity Bonds), taking into account Incorporated NYSE Rule 319
(Fidelity Bonds) and its Interpretation.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at https://www.finra.org, at the principal
[[Page 72851]]
office of FINRA and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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 IV below. FINRA 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
As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\4\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Rule 3020 as FINRA Rule 4360 (Fidelity Bonds), taking into account NYSE
Rule 319 (and its Interpretation).\5\ Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would
update and clarify the fidelity bond requirements and better reflect
current industry practices. Unless otherwise noted below, the
provisions in NASD Rule 3020 would transfer, subject only to non-
substantive changes, as part of proposed FINRA Rule 4360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of: (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
\5\ For convenience, the Incorporated NYSE Rules are referred to
as the NYSE Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASD Rule 3020 and NYSE Rule 319 (and its Interpretation) generally
require members to maintain minimum amounts of fidelity bond coverage
for officers and employees, and that such coverage address losses
incurred due to certain specified events. The purpose of a fidelity
bond is to protect a member against certain types of losses, including,
but not limited to, those caused by the malfeasance of its officers and
employees, and the effect of such losses on the member's capital.
General Provision
NASD Rule 3020(a) generally provides that each member required to
join the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (``SIPC'') that has
employees and that is not a member in good standing of one of the
enumerated national securities exchanges must maintain fidelity bond
coverage; NYSE Rule 319(a) generally requires member organizations
doing business with the public to carry fidelity bonds. Like NASD Rule
3020, proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would require each member that is
required to join SIPC to maintain blanket fidelity bond coverage with
specified amounts of coverage based on the member's net capital
requirement, with certain exceptions.
NASD Rule 3020(a)(1) requires members to maintain a blanket
fidelity bond in a form substantially similar to the standard form of
Brokers Blanket Bond promulgated by the Surety Association of America.
Under NYSE Rule 319(a), the Stockbrokers Partnership Bond and the
Brokers Blanket Bond approved by the NYSE are the only bond forms that
may be used by a member organization; NYSE approval is required for any
variation from such forms. Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would require
members to maintain fidelity bond coverage that provides for per loss
coverage without an aggregate limit of liability. Members may apply for
this level of coverage with any product that meets these requirements,
including the Securities Dealer Blanket Bond (``SDBB'') or a properly
endorsed Financial Institution Form 14 Bond (``Form 14'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Since 1982, firms electing to acquire coverage through the
FINRA-sponsored Insurance Program (``Sponsored Program'') have been
provided with the SDBB. It is the ``default'' insurance for FINRA
members in that when a firm completes the application for the
Sponsored Program, they are applying for the SDBB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most fidelity bonds contain a definition of the term ``loss'' (or
``single loss''), for purposes of the bond, which generally includes
all covered losses resulting from any one act or a series of related
acts. A payment by an insurer for covered losses attributed to a
``single loss'' does not reduce a member's coverage amount for losses
attributed to other, separate acts. A fidelity bond with an aggregate
limit of liability caps a member's coverage during the bond period at a
certain amount if a loss (or losses) meets this aggregate threshold.
FINRA believes that per loss coverage without an aggregate limit of
liability provides firms with the most beneficial coverage since the
bond amount cannot be exhausted by one or more covered losses, so it
will be available for future losses during the bond period.
Under proposed FINRA Rule 4360, a member's fidelity bond must
provide against loss and have Insuring Agreements covering at least the
following: fidelity, on premises, in transit, forgery and alteration,
securities and counterfeit currency. The proposed rule change modifies
the descriptive headings for these Insuring Agreements, in part, from
NASD Rule 3020(a)(1) and NYSE Rule 319(d) to align them with the
headings in the current bond forms available to broker-dealers. FINRA
has been advised by insurance industry representatives that the
proposed rule change does not substantively change what is required to
be covered by the bond.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, previous versions of the SDBB and Form 14
included a separate Insuring Agreement for misplacement; however, in
the current versions of the bonds, this coverage is included in both
``on premises'' and ``in transit'' coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would eliminate the specific
coverage provisions in NASD Rule 3020(a)(4) and (a)(5), and NYSE Rule
319(d)(ii)(B) and (C), and (e)(ii)(B) and (C), that permit less than
100 percent of coverage for certain Insuring Agreements (i.e.,
fraudulent trading and securities forgery) to require that coverage for
all Insuring Agreements be equal to 100 percent of the firm's minimum
required bond coverage. Members may elect to carry additional, optional
Insuring Agreements not required by proposed FINRA Rule 4360 for an
amount less than 100 percent of the minimum required bond coverage.
Like NASD Rule 3020(a)(1)(H) and NYSE Rule 319.12, proposed FINRA
Rule 4360 would require that a member's fidelity bond include a
cancellation rider providing that the insurer will use its best efforts
to promptly notify FINRA in the event the bond is cancelled, terminated
or ``substantially modified.'' Also, the proposed rule change would
adopt the definition of ``substantially modified'' in NYSE Rule 319 and
would incorporate NYSE Rule 319.12's standard that a firm must
immediately advise FINRA in writing if its fidelity bond is cancelled,
terminated or substantially modified.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NYSE Rule 319 defines the term ``substantially modified'' as
any change in the type or amount of fidelity bonding coverage, or in
the exclusions to which the bond is subject, or any other change in
the bond such that it no longer complies with the requirements of
the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA is proposing to add supplementary material to proposed FINRA
Rule 4360 that would require members that do not qualify for a bond
with per loss coverage without an aggregate limit of liability to
secure
[[Page 72852]]
alternative coverage. Specifically, a member that does not qualify for
blanket fidelity bond coverage as required by proposed FINRA Rule
4360(a)(3) would be required to maintain substantially similar fidelity
bond coverage in compliance with all other provisions of the proposed
rule, provided that the member maintains written correspondence from
two insurance providers stating that the member does not qualify for
the coverage required by proposed FINRA Rule 4360(a)(3). The member
would be required to retain such correspondence for the period
specified by Exchange Act Rule 17a-4(b)(4). FINRA has been advised by
insurance industry representatives that the proposed alternative
coverage requirement is necessary for firms that, for example, have had
a covered loss paid by an insurer within the past five years or firms
that may present certain risk factors that would prevent an insurer
from offering per loss coverage without an aggregate limit of
liability.
Minimum Required Coverage
NASD Rule 3020 requires fidelity bond coverage for officers and
employees of a member. Under NASD Rule 3020(e), the term ``employee''
or ``employees'' means any person or persons associated with a member
firm (as defined in Article I, paragraph (rr) of the FINRA By-Laws)
except: (1) Sole proprietors, (2) sole stockholders and (3) directors
or trustees of a member who are not performing acts coming within the
scope of the usual duties of an officer or employee. Under NYSE Rule
319(a), any member organization doing business with the public must
maintain fidelity bond coverage for general partners or officers and
its employees.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Under NYSE Rule Interpretation 319/02 (Additional
Coverages), the required coverage of the Brokers Blanket Bond must
apply, through rider or otherwise, as applicable to: all domestic
and foreign guaranteed and non-guaranteed affiliates, subsidiaries
and branches; bearer instruments if the member organization handles
such securities; limited partners of a member firm if they are also
employees; and the partners, officers and employees or person acting
in a similar capacity of electronic data processing agencies in
their activities on behalf of the member organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed FINRA Rule 4360, similar to NASD Rule 3020 and NYSE Rule
319, would require each member to maintain, at a minimum, fidelity bond
coverage for any person associated with the member, except directors or
trustees of a member who are not performing acts within the scope of
the usual duties of an officer or employee. As further detailed below,
the proposed rule change would eliminate the exemption in NASD Rule
3020 for sole stockholders and sole proprietors.
The proposed rule change would increase the minimum required
fidelity bond coverage for members, while continuing to base the
coverage on a member's net capital requirement. To that end, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would require a member with a net capital requirement
that is less than $250,000 to maintain minimum coverage of the greater
of 120 percent of the firm's required net capital under Exchange Act
Rule 15c3-1 or $100,000. The increase to $100,000 would modify the
present minimum requirement of $25,000. FINRA believes this increase is
warranted since the NASD and NYSE fidelity bond rules have not been
materially modified since their adoption--over 30 years ago--and
$25,000 in 1974 (the year the NASD rule was adopted) is equal to
approximately $110,000 today (adjusted for inflation). Although members
may experience a slight increase in costs for their premiums under the
proposed rule change, FINRA believes that the proposed amendments to
the fidelity bond minimum requirements are necessary to provide
meaningful and practical coverage for losses covered by the bond.
Under proposed FINRA Rule 4360, members with a net capital
requirement of at least $250,000 would use a table in the rule to
determine their minimum fidelity bond coverage requirement. The table
is a modified version of the tables in NASD Rule 3020(a)(3) and NYSE
Rule 319(e)(i). The identical NASD and NYSE requirements for members
that have a minimum net capital requirement that exceeds $1 million
would be retained in proposed FINRA Rule 4360; however, the proposed
rule would adopt the higher requirements in NYSE Rule 319(e)(i) for a
member with a net capital requirement of at least $250,000, but less
than $1 million.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For example, NASD Rule 3020 requires a small clearing and
carrying firm (i.e., one subject to a $250,000 net capital
requirement) to obtain $300,000 in coverage. The same firm, had it
been designated to NYSE, would have needed $600,000 in coverage.
FINRA believes the increased coverage requirements are appropriate
given the larger number/amount of claims that can be satisfied at
these levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed rule, the entire amount of a member's minimum
required coverage must be available for covered losses and may not be
eroded by the costs an insurer may incur if it chooses to defend a
claim. Specifically, any defense costs for covered losses must be in
addition to a member's minimum coverage requirements. A member may
include defense costs as part of its fidelity bond coverage, but only
to the extent that it does not reduce a member's minimum required
coverage under the proposed rule.
Deductible Provision
Under NASD Rule 3020(b), a deductible provision may be included in
a member's bond of up to $5,000 or 10 percent of the member's minimum
insurance requirement, whichever is greater. If a member desires to
maintain coverage in excess of the minimum insurance requirement, then
a deductible provision may be included in the bond of up to $5,000 or
10 percent of the amount of blanket coverage provided in the bond
purchased, whichever is greater. The excess of any such deductible
amount over the maximum permissible deductible amount based on the
member's minimum required coverage must be deducted from the member's
net worth in the calculation of the member's net capital for purposes
of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1. Where the member is a subsidiary of
another member, the excess may be deducted from the parent's rather
than the subsidiary's net worth, but only if the parent guarantees the
subsidiary's net capital in writing.
Under NYSE Rule 319(b), each member organization may self-insure to
the extent of $10,000 or 10 percent of its minimum insurance
requirement as fixed by the NYSE, whichever is greater, for each type
of coverage required by the rule. Self-insurance in amounts exceeding
the above maximum may be permitted by the NYSE provided the member or
member organization certifies to the satisfaction of the NYSE that it
is unable to obtain greater bonding coverage, and agrees to reduce its
self-insurance so as to comply with the above stated limits as soon as
possible, and appropriate charges to capital are made pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1. This provision also contains identical
language to the NASD rule regarding net worth deductions for
subsidiaries.
Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would provide for an allowable deductible
amount of up to 25 percent of the fidelity bond coverage purchased by a
member. Any deductible amount elected by the firm that is greater than
10 percent of the coverage purchased by the member \11\ would be
deducted from the member's net worth in the calculation of its net
capital for purposes of Exchange Act Rule 15c3-1.\12\ Like the NASD and
NYSE rules, if
[[Page 72853]]
the member is a subsidiary of another FINRA member, this amount may be
deducted from the parent's rather than the subsidiary's net worth, but
only if the parent guarantees the subsidiary's net capital in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FINRA notes that a member may elect, subject to
availability, a deductible of less than 10 percent of the coverage
purchased.
\12\ NASD Rule 3020 bases the deduction from net worth for an
excess deductible on a firm's minimum required coverage, while
proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would base such deduction from net worth on
coverage purchased by the member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Review of Coverage
Consistent with NASD Rule 3020(c) and NYSE Rule 319.10, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would require a member (including a firm that signs a
multi-year insurance policy), annually as of the yearly anniversary
date of the issuance of the fidelity bond, to review the adequacy of
its fidelity bond coverage and make any required adjustments to its
coverage, as set forth in the proposed rule. Under proposed FINRA Rule
4360(d), a member's highest net capital requirement during the
preceding 12-month period, based on the applicable method of computing
net capital (dollar minimum, aggregate indebtedness or alternative
standard), would be used as the basis for determining the member's
minimum required fidelity bond coverage for the succeeding 12-month
period. The ``preceding 12-month period'' includes the 12-month period
that ends 60 days before the yearly anniversary date of a member's
fidelity bond. This would give a firm time to determine its required
fidelity bond coverage by the anniversary date of the bond.
Similar to NASD Rule 3020(c)(2), proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would
allow a member that has only been in business for one year and elected
the aggregate indebtedness ratio for calculating its net capital
requirement to use, solely for the purpose of determining the adequacy
of its fidelity bond coverage for its second year, the 15 to 1 ratio of
aggregate indebtedness to net capital in lieu of the 8 to 1 ratio
(required for broker-dealers in their first year of business) to
calculate its net capital requirement. Notwithstanding the above, such
member would not be permitted to carry less minimum fidelity bond
coverage in its second year than it carried in its first year.
Exemptions
Based in part on NASD Rule 3020(a), proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would
exempt from the fidelity bond requirements members in good standing
with a national securities exchange that maintain a fidelity bond
subject to the requirements of such exchange that are equal to or
greater than the requirements set forth in the proposed rule.\13\
Additionally, consistent with NYSE Rule Interpretation 319/01, proposed
FINRA Rule 4360 would continue to exempt from the fidelity bond
requirements any firm that acts solely as a Designated Market Maker
(``DMM''),\14\ floor broker or registered floor trader and does not
conduct business with the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ In general, the notification provisions of the
corresponding exchange rules (i.e., cancellation rider and
notification upon cancellation, termination or substantial
modification of the bond) require notification to the respective
exchange rather than to FINRA. Accordingly, the practical effect for
a firm that avails itself of the proposed exemption is that such
firm must maintain a fidelity bond subject to the same or greater
requirements as in proposed FINRA Rule 4360; however, such firm
would be exempt from the requirement that FINRA be notified of
changes to the bond and would alternatively comply with the
notification provisions of the respective exchange.
\14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (October 24,
2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NYSE-2008-46). In this rule filing, the role of the specialist was
altered in certain respects and the term ``specialist'' was replaced
with the term ``Designated Market Maker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed FINRA Rule 4360 would not maintain the exemption in NASD
Rule 3020(e) for a one-person firm.\15\ Historically, a sole proprietor
or sole stockholder member was excluded from the fidelity bond
requirements based upon the assumption that such firms were one-person
shops and, therefore, could not obtain coverage for their own acts.
FINRA has determined that sole proprietors and sole stockholder firms
can and often do acquire fidelity bond coverage, even though it is
currently not required, since all claims (irrespective of firm size)
are likely to be paid or denied on a facts-and-circumstances basis.
Also, certain coverage areas of the fidelity bond benefit a one-person
shop (e.g., those covering customer property lost in transit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A one-person member (that is, a firm owned by a sole
proprietor or stockholder that has no other associated persons,
registered or unregistered) has no ``employees'' for purposes of
NASD Rule 3020, and therefore such a firm currently is not subject
to the fidelity bonding requirements. Conversely, a firm owned by a
sole proprietor or stockholder that has other associated persons has
``employees'' for purposes of NASD Rule 3020, and currently is, and
will continue to be, subject to the fidelity bonding requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA understands that changes to a firm's fidelity bond policy, in
coordination with insurance providers, may be impacted by bond renewal
cycles and changes required by the insurance industry. FINRA will
consider such factors in establishing an implementation date for the
proposed rule change upon approval by the SEC.
FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval. The implementation date will be no later
than 365 days following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\16\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
update and clarify the requirements governing fidelity bonds for
adoption as FINRA Rule 4360 in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others
In July 2009, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 09-44 (FINRA
Requests Comment on Proposed Consolidated FINRA Rule Governing Fidelity
Bonds) requesting comment on the proposed rule change. The comment
period expired on September 14, 2009. Thirteen comment letters were
received in response to the Regulatory Notice. A copy of the Regulatory
Notice is attached as Exhibit 2a to this rule filing. A list of the
commenters, and copies of the comment letters, are attached as Exhibit
2b to this rule filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ All references to commenters under this Item are to the
commenters as listed and defined in Exhibit 2b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As originally proposed in Regulatory Notice 09-44, FINRA Rule 4360
provided that any member that is required to be a member of SIPC must
maintain fidelity bond coverage with the SDBB, unless they are unable
to obtain this coverage, in which case they may use the Form 14.
Several commenters noted that only a limited number of insurance
carriers offer the SDBB, the standard form of which provides per loss
(i.e., per event) coverage without an aggregate limit of liability, and
requested that FINRA provide flexibility with respect to bond
[[Page 72854]]
forms under the proposed rule.\18\ These commenters suggested that
limiting the bond form requirement to the SDBB restricts competition
among insurance carriers, limits the potential of broker-dealers to
secure superior coverage at more favorable terms and is likely to
result in unfair pricing of such policies, raising costs for firms. The
commenters further noted that the proposal creates an uneven playing
field in that it promotes certain underwriters and products to the
disadvantage of others that offer commensurate coverage, such as a
properly endorsed Form 14. One commenter suggested that FINRA amend the
proposed rule to set forth the parameters of the preferred bond form
instead of prescribing a particular product.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FFS, Gallagher, HBHA, ISO, Kwiecinski, SFAA and Travelers.
\19\ SFAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters noted that an aggregate limit of liability is
standard in the industry and important to most underwriters because it
quantifies and controls the underwriter's maximum exposure to loss
during the bond period.\20\ Further, the commenters noted that without
an aggregate limit of liability, members' premium costs are likely to
increase. Certain commenters believe that a bond with a ``restoration
of the aggregate'' option is the equivalent of ``per event''
coverage.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ FFS, Kwiecinski, SFAA and Travelers.
\21\ Kwiecinski and SFAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the comments, FINRA made certain changes to the
original proposal. Specifically, FINRA has amended the proposed rule to
remove the requirement that a member maintain fidelity bond coverage
with the SDBB, and alternatively with the Form 14. As detailed in the
Purpose section of this rule filing, the proposed rule would require a
member to maintain blanket fidelity bond coverage with a bond that
would provide for per loss coverage without an aggregate limit of
liability (e.g., the SDBB or a properly endorsed Form 14). FINRA
believes the amendments to the proposal address the issues noted by the
commenters while maintaining the aims of the proposed rule to provide
blanket per loss fidelity bond coverage unrestricted by an aggregate
limit of liability. As noted in detail in the Purpose section of this
rule filing, FINRA believes that a member's fidelity bond coverage
should not include an aggregate limit of liability because it is
important that a member's coverage not be eroded by covered losses
within the bond period, thus exposing a member to future losses with a
reduced bond limit.
Additionally, FINRA has amended its original proposal for
alternative coverage in the supplementary material to the proposed rule
to provide that a member that does not qualify for blanket fidelity
bond coverage as required by proposed FINRA Rule 4360(a)(3) must
maintain substantially similar fidelity bond coverage in compliance
with all other provisions of the proposed rule, provided that the
member maintains written correspondence from two insurance providers
stating that the member does not qualify for the coverage required by
proposed FINRA Rule 4360(a)(3). The member would be required to retain
such correspondence for the period specified by Exchange Act Rule 17a-
4(b)(4).
One commenter agreed with FINRA's proposal to increase the minimum
bond limit requirement because losses often exceed the current minimum
bond requirements, which exposes firms' net capital and, in some cases,
results in a SIPC liquidation proceeding.\22\ Other commenters noted
that the proposed increased minimum requirements remain inadequate.\23\
According to one commenter, the proposed minimum fidelity bond
requirements do not meet comparable limits of liability set for any
other insurable exposure in the commercial marketplace and, when
registered representatives steal from clients, the losses frequently
range from $250,000 to $5 million or more.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Travelers.
\23\ First Asset and Gallagher.
\24\ Gallagher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain other commenters opposed the increase in the minimum bond
requirement arguing that it will have a disproportionately negative
effect on small firms, including small firms that engage in certain
business areas that require a higher net capital amount.\25\ Two
commenters requested that FINRA provide specific data to justify why
the increased minimum fidelity bond requirements are necessary.\26\ One
commenter suggested that the expansion of the definition of ``branch
office'' will increase fees for securing fidelity bond coverage.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ FGS, First Asset, HBHA and PCI.
\26\ First Asset and Schriner.
\27\ First Asset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA does not propose to make any changes to the proposed minimum
requirements set forth in Regulatory Notice 09-44. As stated above in
the Purpose section of this rule filing, FINRA believes the increase in
the minimum fidelity bond requirements is warranted since the NASD and
NYSE fidelity bond rules have not been materially modified since their
adoption over 30 years ago; members that have maintained minimum
coverage of $25,000 have had claims that exceed this amount; and
notwithstanding a slight increase in premium costs for certain members
under the proposed rule change, the proposed amendments are necessary
to provide meaningful and practical coverage for losses covered by the
bond. With respect to the comment regarding the ``branch office''
definition, FINRA notes that the proposed fidelity bond rule does not
implicate the definition of ``branch office.'' Irrespective of FINRA's
definition of ``branch office,'' the insurance provider makes the
determination as to whether the number of branch offices associated
with a member is a relevant criterion in assessing a member's fidelity
bond coverage and premiums. FINRA neither imposes a requirement that
insurance providers use branch offices as a factor in evaluating a
member's qualifications to obtain fidelity bond coverage nor does it
require them to use its current definition of branch office to make
this determination.
One commenter suggested that the proposed rule require notification
to FINRA in the event that the member has experienced a loss or losses
that have exhausted its fidelity bond coverage.\28\ FINRA did not make
any changes to the proposal in this respect because a bond without an
aggregate limit of liability by its terms cannot be exhausted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Kwiecinski.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters suggested that FINRA incorporate an exemption into
the proposed rule for firms that are a subsidiary of a larger parent
organization.\29\ According to the commenters, parent organizations of
members typically purchase their own fidelity bonds, include the member
subsidiary as an insured under that program, and provide substantially
greater coverage than the minimum requirements under the proposed rule.
Moreover, the commenters believe that the premiums paid for the FINRA
bond are an unnecessary expense since the coverage already exists. The
commenters also noted that, in many cases, a duplication of coverage
complicates loss settlements where the bonds of both the member firm
and its parent organization are affected by a single loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Kwiecinski and Travelers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA notes that neither the current fidelity bond rule nor the
proposed fidelity bond rule precludes a member from being part of its
parent organization's fidelity bond coverage as long as the coverage
under the parent's bond provides equal to or greater
[[Page 72855]]
coverage than the member's minimum required coverage under the rule.
The parent organization's bond must contain a rider that provides for
the subsidiary broker-dealer's coverage by enumerating the requirements
of the FINRA rule and providing for, at a minimum, the subsidiary's
minimum required coverage. Accordingly, FINRA does not propose to amend
the proposed rule in this respect as it is unnecessary.
Two commenters urged FINRA to maintain an exemption from the
fidelity bond requirements for one-person firms.\30\ The commenters
noted that FINRA could be requiring coverage that is not available in
the marketplace, since the alter ego concept applies to fidelity bond
claims for these entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ SFAA and Travelers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above in the Purpose section of this rule filing, many
one-person firms currently maintain fidelity bond coverage
notwithstanding the exemption in NASD Rule 3020, and claims are likely
to be paid based on a facts-and-circumstances analysis, not on a firm's
size or structure. As such, FINRA is not proposing any changes to the
original proposal in this respect.
One commenter noted that the proposed rule serves no purpose to
investors of the financial markets in its application to small firms
that do not hold customer funds, execute transactions in securities on
public markets, or engage in trading or underwriting (e.g., a firm that
solely provides corporate financial advisory services for fee
income).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Akin Bay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA believes that all members of SIPC should maintain fidelity
bond coverage. FINRA does not agree with the commenter's assessment,
since any firm could be the target of malfeasance of one of its
employees. Thus, FINRA is not proposing to incorporate an exemption for
these small firms.
One commenter encouraged FINRA to incorporate a requirement for an
insuring agreement for Computer Theft.\32\ FINRA did not amend the
proposal to add this insuring agreement at this time; however, FINRA
understands that this coverage is already included in most basic riders
obtained by members at no extra cost, so a member will likely obtain
this coverage automatically as part of its fidelity bond coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Travelers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter supported increased deductible thresholds; however,
the commenter suggested deleting the haircut provision because the
proposed rule may discourage a firm from pursuing or accepting higher
deductibles if it has to take a haircut in its net capital computation
for deductibles over 10 percent.\33\ Another commenter suggested that
the annual review requirement is duplicitous and unnecessary and that
the proposed rule should speak solely to minimum bond requirements for
members.\34\ The commenter noted that fidelity bond reviews should be
triggered by changes in a firm's net capital requirement and not
subject to an annual requirement, since the firm would likely review
how any changes in net capital affect all aspects of the firm when such
changes occur. FINRA did not make any amendments to the proposal in
these areas as these concepts have not been substantively amended from
the legacy NASD rule, and FINRA believes that they are achieving their
intended purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Travelers.
\34\ IBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or (B)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2010-059 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-059. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Web site (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-059 and should be
submitted on or before December 17, 2010.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29727 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P