Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to the Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions, 11248-11251 [2017-03295]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11248
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 21, 2017 / Notices
The
United States Postal Service® hereby
gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 14,
2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory
Commission a Request of the United
States Postal Service to Add Priority
Mail Contract 294 to Competitive
Product List. Documents are available at
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017–91,
CP2017–125.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
POSTAL SERVICE
Product Change—Priority Mail Express
Negotiated Service Agreement
ACTION:
Postal ServiceTM.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives
notice of filing a request with the Postal
Regulatory Commission to add a
domestic shipping services contract to
the list of Negotiated Service
Agreements in the Mail Classification
Schedule’s Competitive Products List.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective date: February 21, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The
United States Postal Service® hereby
gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.
3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 14,
2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory
Commission a Request of the United
States Postal Service to Add Priority
Mail Express Contract 45 to Competitive
Product List. Documents are available at
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017–92,
CP2017–126.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017–03287 Filed 2–17–17; 8:45 am]
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Feb 17, 2017
[Release No. 34–80040; File No. SR–CBOE–
2016–088]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval
of a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related
to the Nullification and Adjustment of
Options Transactions
February 14, 2017.
[FR Doc. 2017–03286 Filed 2–17–17; 8:45 am]
AGENCY:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Jkt 241001
I. Introduction
On December 14, 2016, Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4
thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to
amend Exchange Rule 6.25, relating to
the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous complex order and stockoption order transactions. The proposed
rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on January 3,
2017.3 On February 13, 2017, the
Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change.4 The
Commission received no comments
regarding the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.
II. Description of the Proposed Rule
Change
The Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 6.25, entitled ‘‘Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions’’ by
adding Interpretation and Policy .07 (a)–
(c) related to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous complex order
and stock-option order transactions.
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79697
(December 27, 2016), 82 FR 167 (‘‘Notice’’).
4 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed an
implementation date of April 17, 2017, to allow all
the other options exchanges that permit complex
order or stock-option order transactions the time
necessary to harmonize their obvious error rules
with the proposed rule change. Because
Amendment No. 1 does not materially alter the
substance of the proposed rule change or raise
unique or novel regulatory issues, Amendment No.
1 is not subject to notice and comment. To promote
transparency of its proposed amendment, when
CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 with the
Commission, it also submitted Amendment No. 1 as
a comment letter to the file, which the Commission
posted on its Web site and placed in the public
comment file for SR–CBOE–2016–088 (available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2016-088/
cboe2016088-1581994-131907.pdf). The Exchange
also posted a copy of its Amendment No. 1 on its
Web site (https://www.cboe.com/aboutcboe/legal/
submittedsecfilings.aspx), when it filed it with the
Commission.
2 17
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A. Background
The Exchange and other options
exchanges previously adopted new,
harmonized rules related to the
adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions.5 The
Exchange believes that the changes the
options exchanges implemented with
the new, harmonized rule have led to
increased transparency and finality with
respect to the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options
transactions. However, as part of the
initial initiative, the Exchange and other
options exchanges deferred a few
specific matters for further discussion,
including how erroneous complex
orders and stock-option orders should
be handled.
Since the adopting of the initial
harmonized rule, the exchanges that
offer complex orders and/or stockoption orders discussed the adoption of
a rule—described below—that they
collectively believe will improve the
handling of erroneous options
transactions that result from the
execution of complex orders and stockoption orders.6
B. Proposed Rule
The proposed rule applies much of
the initial harmonized rule to complex
orders and stock-option orders. The
proposed rule, however, deviates from
the initial harmonized rule to account
for unique qualities of complex orders
and stock-option orders. Specifically,
the proposed rule reflects the fact that
complex orders can execute against
other complex orders or can execute
against individual simple orders in the
leg markets. When a complex order
executes against the leg markets, there
may be different counterparties on each
leg of the complex order, and not every
leg will necessarily be executed at an
erroneous price. With regards to stockoption orders, the proposed rule reflects
the fact that stock-option orders contain
a stock component that is executed on
a stock trading venue, and the Exchange
may not be able to ensure that the stock
trading venue will adjust or nullify the
stock execution in the event of an
obvious or catastrophic error. In order to
account for the unique characteristics of
complex orders and stock-option orders,
5 See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
74898 (May 7, 2015), 80 FR 27354 (May 13, 2015)
(SR–CBOE–2015–039); and 74556 (March 20, 2015),
80 FR 16031 (March 26, 2015) (SR–BATS–2014–
067) (‘‘BATS Order’’).
6 See Notice, supra note 3, at 167. An exchange
that does not offer complex orders and/or stockoption orders will not adopt these new provisions
until such time as the exchange offers complex
orders and/or stock-option orders. See id. at 167
n.5.
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 21, 2017 / Notices
the Exchange divided proposed
Interpretation and Policy .07 into three
parts—paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
1. Complex Orders Executed Against
Individual Legs
Proposed Interpretation and Policy
.07(a) governs the review of complex
orders that are executed against
individual legs (as opposed to a
complex order that executes against
another complex order).7 Proposed Rule
6.25.07(a) provides:
If a complex order executes against
individual legs and at least one of the legs
qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error
under this Rule 6.25, then the leg(s) that is
an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be
adjusted in accordance with paragraphs
(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of
whether one of the parties is a Customer.
However, any Customer order subject to this
paragraph (a) will be nullified if the
adjustment would result in an execution
price higher (for buy transactions) or lower
(for sell transactions) than the Customer’s
limit price on the complex order or
individual leg(s). If any leg of a complex
order is nullified, the entire transaction is
nullified.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
At least one of the legs of the complex
order must qualify as an obvious or
catastrophic error under the initial
harmonized rule in order for the
complex order to receive obvious or
catastrophic error relief. Thus, when the
Exchange is notified (within the
timeframes set forth in paragraph (c)(2)
or (d)(2)) of a complex order that is a
possible obvious error or catastrophic
error, the Exchange will first review the
individual legs of the complex order to
determine if one or more legs qualify as
an obvious or catastrophic error.8 If no
leg qualifies as an obvious or
catastrophic error, the transaction
stands—no adjustment and no
nullification.
Reviewing the legs to determine
whether one or more legs qualify as an
obvious or catastrophic error requires
the Exchange to follow the initial
harmonized rule. In accordance with
paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the initial
harmonized rule, the Exchange
compares the execution price of each
7 The leg market consists of quotes and/or orders
in single options series. A complex order may be
received by the Exchange electronically, and the
legs of the complex order may have different
counterparties.
8 Because a complex order can execute against the
leg market, the Exchange may also be notified of a
possible obvious or catastrophic error by a
counterparty that received an execution in an
individual options series. If upon review of a
potential obvious error the Exchange determines an
individual options series was executed against the
leg of a complex order or stock-option order,
proposed Rule 6.25.07 will govern.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Feb 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
individual leg to the Theoretical Price 9
of each leg (as determined by paragraph
(b) of the initial harmonized rule).
Under the proposed rule, if the
execution price of an individual leg is
higher or lower than the Theoretical
Price for the series by an amount equal
to at least the amount shown in the
obvious error table in paragraph (c)(1) of
the initial harmonized rule or the
catastrophic error table in paragraph
(d)(1) of the initial harmonized rule, the
individual leg qualifies as an obvious or
catastrophic error, and the Exchange
will take steps to adjust or nullify the
transaction.10
Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the initial
harmonized rule mandates that if it is
determined that an obvious error has
occurred, the execution price of the
transaction will be adjusted pursuant to
the table set forth in (c)(4)(A).11
Although for simple orders paragraph
(c)(4)(A) is only applicable when no
party to the transaction is a Customer,12
for the purposes of complex orders,
paragraph (a) of proposed Interpretation
and Policy .07 will supersede that
limitation; therefore, if it is determined
that a leg (or legs) of a complex order
is an obvious error, the leg (or legs) will
be adjusted pursuant to paragraph
(c)(4)(A), regardless of whether a party
to the transaction is a Customer. The
Size Adjustment Modifier defined in
subparagraph (a)(4) will similarly apply
(regardless of whether a Customer is on
the transaction) by virtue of the
application of paragraph (c)(4)(A).13
Pursuant to proposed Rule 6.25.07(a),
if a complex order executes against
individual legs and at least one of the
leg(s) qualifies as an Obvious Error or a
Catastrophic Error, then the leg(s) that is
9 See Rule 6.25(b) (defining the manner in which
Theoretical Price is determined).
10 Only the execution price on the leg (or legs)
that qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error
pursuant to any portion of proposed Rule 6.25.07
will be adjusted. The execution price of a leg (or
legs) that does not qualify as an obvious or
catastrophic error will not be adjusted.
11 In contrast, paragraph (d)(3) of the initial
harmonized rule mandates that if it is determined
that a catastrophic error has occurred, the execution
price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant
to the table set forth in paragraph (d)(3). However,
if a Customer is a party to the transaction and the
adjustment would result in an execution price
higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell
transactions) than the Customer’s limit price, the
Customer order will be nullified.
12 See Rule 6.25(a)(1) (defining Customer for
purposes of Rule 6.25 as not including a brokerdealer, Professional Customer, or Voluntary
Professional Customer).
13 See Rule 6.25(c)(4)(A) (stating that any nonCustomer Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will
be subject to the Size Adjustment Modifier defined
in sub-paragraph (a)(4)). The Size Adjustment
Modifier may also apply to the option leg of a stockoption order that is adjusted pursuant to proposed
Rule 6.25.07(c).
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11249
an Obvious or Catastrophic error will be
adjusted in accordance with paragraphs
(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the initial
harmonized rule, respectively,
regardless of whether one of the parties
is a Customer. However, because
incoming complex orders may execute
against resting simple orders in the leg
market and adjusting the execution
price of the leg may violate the limit
price of the resting order, proposed Rule
6.25.07(a) also provides protection for
Customer orders, stating that where at
least one party to a complex order
transaction is a Customer, the
transaction will be nullified if
adjustment would result in an execution
price higher (for buy transactions) or
lower (for sell transactions) than the
Customer’s limit price on the complex
order or individual leg(s). If any leg of
a complex order is nullified, the entire
transaction will be nullified.
2. Complex Orders Executed Against
Complex Orders
Proposed Interpretation and Policy
.07(b) governs the review of complex
orders that are executed against other
complex orders. Proposed Rule
6.25.07(b) provides:
If a complex order executes against another
complex order and at least one of the legs
qualifies as an Obvious Error under
paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under
paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an
Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be
adjusted or busted in accordance with
paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively, so
long as either: (i) The width of the National
Spread Market for the complex order strategy
just prior to the erroneous transaction was
equal to or greater than the amount set forth
in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) or
(ii) the net execution price of the complex
order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of
the National Spread Market for the complex
order strategy just prior to the erroneous
transaction by an amount equal to at least the
amount shown in the table in paragraph
(c)(1). If any leg of a complex order is
nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.
For purposes of Rule 6.25, the National
Spread Market for a complex order strategy
is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer
of the individual legs of the strategy.
As described above in relation to
proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), the first step
is for the Exchange to review (upon
receipt of a timely notification in
accordance with paragraph (c)(2) or
(d)(2) of the initial harmonized rule) the
individual legs to determine whether a
leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or
catastrophic error. If no leg qualifies as
an obvious or catastrophic error, the
transaction stands—no adjustment and
no nullification.
Unlike proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), the
Exchange also proposes to compare the
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
11250
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 21, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
net execution price of the entire
complex order package to the National
Spread Market for the complex order
strategy.14 Complex orders are exempt
from the order protection rules of the
options exchanges.15 Thus, depending
on the manner in which the systems of
an options exchange are calibrated, a
complex order can execute without
regard to the prices offered in the
complex order books or the leg markets
of other options exchanges.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to
consider the National Spread Market.
Specifically, proposed Rule 6.25.07(b)
provides that if the Exchange
determines that a leg or legs does
qualify as an obvious or catastrophic
error, the leg or legs will be adjusted or
busted in accordance with paragraph
(c)(4) or (d)(3) of the initial harmonized
rule, so long as either: (i) The width of
the National Spread Market for the
complex order strategy just prior to the
erroneous transaction was equal to or
greater than the amount set forth in the
wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of
the initial harmonized rule or (ii) the net
execution price of the complex order is
higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the
National Spread Market for the complex
order strategy just prior to the erroneous
transaction by an amount equal to at
least the amount shown in the table in
paragraph (c)(1) of the initial
harmonized rule.
For purposes of complex orders that
meet the requirements of proposed Rule
6.25.07(b), the Exchange proposes to
apply the initial harmonized rule and
adjust or bust obvious errors in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (as
opposed to applying only paragraph
(c)(4)(A) as is the case under proposed
Rule 6.25.07(a)) and catastrophic errors
in accordance with paragraph (d)(3).
Therefore, for purposes of complex
orders under proposed Rule 6.25.07(b),
if one of the legs is determined to be an
obvious error under paragraph (c)(1), all
Customer transactions will be nullified,
unless a Trading Permit Holder (‘‘TPH’’)
submits 200 or more Customer
transactions for review in accordance
with paragraph (c)(4)(C).16 For purposes
of complex orders under proposed Rule
6.25.07(b), if one of the legs is
determined to be a catastrophic error
under paragraph (d)(3) and all of the
14 National Spread Market is the derived net
market for a complex order package. See, e.g., Rule
6.53C.04 (utilizing the term derived net market in
the context of complex order strategies).
15 See Rule 6.81(b)(7). All options exchanges have
the same order protection rule.
16 Rule 6.25(c)(4)(C) also requires the orders
resulting in 200 or more Customer transactions to
have been submitted during the course of 2 minutes
or less.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Feb 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
other requirements of proposed Rule
6.25.07(b) are met, all market
participants will be adjusted in
accordance with the table set forth in
paragraph (d)(3). Again, however,
pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) where at
least one party to a complex order
transaction is a Customer, the
transaction will be nullified if
adjustment would result in an execution
price higher (for buy transactions) or
lower (for sell transactions) than the
Customer’s limit price on the complex
order or individual leg(s). Also, if any
leg of a complex order is nullified, the
entire transaction is nullified.
3. Stock-Option Orders
Proposed Interpretation and Policy
.07(c) governs stock-option orders.
Proposed Rule 6.25.07(c) provides:
If the option leg of a stock-option order
qualifies as an Obvious Error under
paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under
paragraph (d)(1), then the option leg that is
an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be
adjusted in accordance with paragraph
(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of
whether one of the parties is a Customer.
However, the option leg of any Customer
order subject to this paragraph (c) will be
nullified if the adjustment would result in an
execution price higher (for buy transactions)
or lower (for sell transactions) than the
Customer’s limit price on the stock-option
order, and the Exchange will attempt to
nullify the stock leg. Whenever a stock
trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a
stock-option order or whenever the stock leg
cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify
the option leg upon request of one of the
parties to the transaction or in accordance
with paragraph (c)(3).
Similar to proposed Interpretation
and Policy .07(a), an option leg (or legs)
of a stock-option order must qualify as
an obvious or catastrophic error under
the initial harmonized rule in order for
the stock-option order to qualify as an
obvious or catastrophic error. Also,
similar to proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), if
an option leg (or legs) does qualify as an
obvious or catastrophic error, the option
leg (or legs) will be adjusted in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or
(d)(3), respectively, regardless of
whether one of the parties is a
Customer. Again, as with proposed Rule
6.25.07(a), where at least one party to a
complex order transaction is a
Customer, the Exchange will nullify the
option leg and attempt to nullify the
stock leg if adjustment would result in
an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell
transactions) than the Customer’s limit
price on the complex order or
individual leg(s).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to
provide guidance that whenever the
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
stock trading venue nullifies the stock
leg of a stock-option order, the option
will be nullified upon request of one of
the parties to the transaction or by an
Official acting on their own motion in
accordance with paragraph (c)(3). The
Exchange states that there are situations
in which buyer and seller agree to trade
a stock-option order, but the stock leg
cannot be executed. Thus, the Exchange
proposes to provide that whenever the
stock portion of a stock-option order
cannot be executed, the Exchange will
nullify the option leg upon request of
one of the parties to the transaction or
on an Official’s own motion.
In order to ensure that other options
exchanges are able to adopt rules
consistent with this proposal and to
coordinate the effectiveness of such
harmonized rules, the Exchange
proposes to delay the effectiveness of
this proposal to April 17, 2017.17
III. Discussion and Commission
Findings
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.18 In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act 19 and with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,20 which requires, among other
things, that the Exchange’s rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
The Commission believes that the
proposal to amend Rule 6.25 will help
assure greater objectivity, transparency,
and clarity with respect to the
adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions and, in
particular, those involving complex
order or stock-option order transactions.
The Commission notes that the proposal
is designed to achieve more consistent
results for participants across U.S.
options exchanges than under the initial
harmonized rules, while maintaining a
fair and orderly market, protecting
investors, and protecting the public
17 See
Amendment No. 1.
approving this proposed rule change, as
amended, the Commission notes that it has
considered the proposed rule’s impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See
15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
20 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
18 In
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 33 / Tuesday, February 21, 2017 / Notices
interest. In particular, the proposal is
designed to increase the consistency
and transparency in the handling of
erroneous options transactions among
those options exchanges that allow
complex order or stock-option order
transactions.
In its order approving the initial
harmonized rule of BATS Exchange,
Inc., the Commission noted that the
options exchanges intended to work
together to further develop additional
objectivity with respect to their
processes for the adjustment and
nullification of erroneous options
transactions.21 The Commission
believes that the proposed rule change
to specifically delineate the treatment of
erroneous complex order or stockoption order transactions constitutes an
additional step towards this goal. Based
on the foregoing, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act 22 in that proposed Rule 6.25 will
foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions.
The Commission notes that the
proposed rule change will become
operative on April 17, 2017. This
delayed implementation is to ensure
that other options exchanges that permit
transactions in complex orders or stockoption orders will have sufficient time
to put in place similar rules consistent
with this proposed rule change and to
coordinate the date of implementation
of such harmonized rules.23
IV. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,24 that the
proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1 (SR–CBOE–2016–
088) be, and hereby is, approved.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.25
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017–03295 Filed 2–17–17; 8:45 am]
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
21 See
BATS Order, supra note 5, at 16039.
U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
23 See Amendment No. 1.
24 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
25 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
22 15
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Feb 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Investment Company Act Release No.
32478; File No. 812–14724]
Brinker Capital Destinations Trust, et
al.; Notice of Application
February 14, 2017.
Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’).
ACTION: Notice of an application for an
order under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
‘‘Act’’) for an exemption from sections
12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and
under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act
for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1)
and (2) of the Act. The requested order
would permit certain registered openend investment companies to acquire
shares of certain registered open-end
investment companies, registered
closed-end investment companies,
business development companies, as
defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Act,
and unit investment trusts (collectively,
‘‘Underlying Funds’’) that are within
and outside the same group of
investment companies as the acquiring
investment companies, in excess of the
limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.
AGENCY:
Brinker Capital
Destinations Trust, a Delaware statutory
trust that is registered under the Act as
an open-end management investment
company with multiple series, and
Brinker Capital, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation registered as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940.
DATES: Filing Dates: The application was
filed on December 8, 2016 and amended
on February 1, 2017.
HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An
order granting the requested relief will
be issued unless the Commission orders
a hearing. Interested persons may
request a hearing by writing to the
Commission’s Secretary and serving
applicants with a copy of the request,
personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the Commission
by 5:30 p.m. on March 14, 2017 and
should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of
an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to Rule 0–5 under
the Act, hearing requests should state
the nature of the writer’s interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a
hearing on the matter, the reason for the
request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a
hearing may request notification by
writing to the Commission’s Secretary.
APPLICANTS:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11251
Secretary, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Applicants: Jason B. Moore, Brinker
Capital Destinations Trust, 1055
Westlakes Drive, Berwyn, PA 19312;
and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP, 1701 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer O. Palmer, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551–5786, or Nadya Roytblat,
Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551–
6821 (Division of Investment
Management, Chief Counsel’s Office).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following is a summary of the
application. The complete application
may be obtained via the Commission’s
Web site by searching for the file
number, or for an applicant using the
Company name box, at https://
www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by
calling (202) 551–8090.
ADDRESSES:
Summary of the Application
1. Applicants request an order to
permit (a) a Fund 1 (each a ‘‘Fund of
Funds’’) to acquire shares of Underlying
Funds 2 in excess of the limits in
sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act
and (b) the Underlying Funds that are
registered open-end investment
companies or series thereof, their
principal underwriters and any broker
or dealer registered under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 to sell shares of
the Underlying Fund to the Fund of
Funds in excess of the limits in section
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.3 Applicants also
request an order of exemption under
1 Applicants request that the order apply to each
existing and future series of Brinker Capital
Destinations Trust and to each existing and future
registered open-end investment company or series
thereof that is advised by Brinker Capital, Inc. or
its successor or by any other investment adviser
controlling, controlled by or under common control
with Brinker Capital, Inc. or its successor and is
part of the same ‘‘group of investment companies’’
as Brinker Capital Destinations Trust (each, a
‘‘Fund’’). For purposes of the requested order,
‘‘successor’’ is limited to an entity that results from
a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a
change in the type of business organization. For
purposes of the request for relief, the term ‘‘group
of investment companies’’ means any two or more
registered investment companies, including closedend investment companies and business
development companies, that hold themselves out
to investors as related companies for purposes of
investment and investor services.
2 Certain of the Underlying Funds have obtained
exemptions from the Commission necessary to
permit their shares to be listed and traded on a
national securities exchange at negotiated prices
and, accordingly, to operate as an exchange-traded
fund (‘‘ETF’’).
3 Applicants do not request relief for Funds of
Funds to invest in reliance on the order in business
development companies and registered closed-end
investment companies that are not listed and traded
on a national securities exchange.
E:\FR\FM\21FEN1.SGM
21FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11248-11251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03295]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-80040; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-088]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to the Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions
February 14, 2017.
I. Introduction
On December 14, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 6.25,
relating to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order
and stock-option order transactions. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on January 3, 2017.\3\ On
February 13, 2017, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no comments regarding
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79697 (December 27,
2016), 82 FR 167 (``Notice'').
\4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposed an implementation
date of April 17, 2017, to allow all the other options exchanges
that permit complex order or stock-option order transactions the
time necessary to harmonize their obvious error rules with the
proposed rule change. Because Amendment No. 1 does not materially
alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or
novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to notice
and comment. To promote transparency of its proposed amendment, when
CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 with the Commission, it also submitted
Amendment No. 1 as a comment letter to the file, which the
Commission posted on its Web site and placed in the public comment
file for SR-CBOE-2016-088 (available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboe-2016-088/cboe2016088-1581994-131907.pdf). The
Exchange also posted a copy of its Amendment No. 1 on its Web site
(https://www.cboe.com/aboutcboe/legal/submittedsecfilings.aspx), when
it filed it with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.25, entitled ``Nullification
and Adjustment of Options Transactions'' by adding Interpretation and
Policy .07 (a)-(c) related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous complex order and stock-option order transactions.
A. Background
The Exchange and other options exchanges previously adopted new,
harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions.\5\ The Exchange believes that the
changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule
have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the
adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.
However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other
options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further
discussion, including how erroneous complex orders and stock-option
orders should be handled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74898 (May
7, 2015), 80 FR 27354 (May 13, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-039); and 74556
(March 20, 2015), 80 FR 16031 (March 26, 2015) (SR-BATS-2014-067)
(``BATS Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the adopting of the initial harmonized rule, the exchanges
that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders discussed the
adoption of a rule--described below--that they collectively believe
will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result
from the execution of complex orders and stock-option orders.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 167. An exchange that does not
offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders will not adopt these
new provisions until such time as the exchange offers complex orders
and/or stock-option orders. See id. at 167 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Rule
The proposed rule applies much of the initial harmonized rule to
complex orders and stock-option orders. The proposed rule, however,
deviates from the initial harmonized rule to account for unique
qualities of complex orders and stock-option orders. Specifically, the
proposed rule reflects the fact that complex orders can execute against
other complex orders or can execute against individual simple orders in
the leg markets. When a complex order executes against the leg markets,
there may be different counterparties on each leg of the complex order,
and not every leg will necessarily be executed at an erroneous price.
With regards to stock-option orders, the proposed rule reflects the
fact that stock-option orders contain a stock component that is
executed on a stock trading venue, and the Exchange may not be able to
ensure that the stock trading venue will adjust or nullify the stock
execution in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error. In order to
account for the unique characteristics of complex orders and stock-
option orders,
[[Page 11249]]
the Exchange divided proposed Interpretation and Policy .07 into three
parts--paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).
1. Complex Orders Executed Against Individual Legs
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(a) governs the review of
complex orders that are executed against individual legs (as opposed to
a complex order that executes against another complex order).\7\
Proposed Rule 6.25.07(a) provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The leg market consists of quotes and/or orders in single
options series. A complex order may be received by the Exchange
electronically, and the legs of the complex order may have different
counterparties.
If a complex order executes against individual legs and at least
one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious or Catastrophic Error under
this Rule 6.25, then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic
Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or
(d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a
Customer. However, any Customer order subject to this paragraph (a)
will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution
price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions)
than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual
leg(s). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
transaction is nullified.
At least one of the legs of the complex order must qualify as an
obvious or catastrophic error under the initial harmonized rule in
order for the complex order to receive obvious or catastrophic error
relief. Thus, when the Exchange is notified (within the timeframes set
forth in paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2)) of a complex order that is a
possible obvious error or catastrophic error, the Exchange will first
review the individual legs of the complex order to determine if one or
more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error.\8\ If no leg
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands--
no adjustment and no nullification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Because a complex order can execute against the leg market,
the Exchange may also be notified of a possible obvious or
catastrophic error by a counterparty that received an execution in
an individual options series. If upon review of a potential obvious
error the Exchange determines an individual options series was
executed against the leg of a complex order or stock-option order,
proposed Rule 6.25.07 will govern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as
an obvious or catastrophic error requires the Exchange to follow the
initial harmonized rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and
(d)(1) of the initial harmonized rule, the Exchange compares the
execution price of each individual leg to the Theoretical Price \9\ of
each leg (as determined by paragraph (b) of the initial harmonized
rule). Under the proposed rule, if the execution price of an individual
leg is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the series by an
amount equal to at least the amount shown in the obvious error table in
paragraph (c)(1) of the initial harmonized rule or the catastrophic
error table in paragraph (d)(1) of the initial harmonized rule, the
individual leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, and the
Exchange will take steps to adjust or nullify the transaction.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Rule 6.25(b) (defining the manner in which Theoretical
Price is determined).
\10\ Only the execution price on the leg (or legs) that
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error pursuant to any
portion of proposed Rule 6.25.07 will be adjusted. The execution
price of a leg (or legs) that does not qualify as an obvious or
catastrophic error will not be adjusted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the initial harmonized rule mandates that if
it is determined that an obvious error has occurred, the execution
price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set
forth in (c)(4)(A).\11\ Although for simple orders paragraph (c)(4)(A)
is only applicable when no party to the transaction is a Customer,\12\
for the purposes of complex orders, paragraph (a) of proposed
Interpretation and Policy .07 will supersede that limitation;
therefore, if it is determined that a leg (or legs) of a complex order
is an obvious error, the leg (or legs) will be adjusted pursuant to
paragraph (c)(4)(A), regardless of whether a party to the transaction
is a Customer. The Size Adjustment Modifier defined in subparagraph
(a)(4) will similarly apply (regardless of whether a Customer is on the
transaction) by virtue of the application of paragraph (c)(4)(A).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In contrast, paragraph (d)(3) of the initial harmonized
rule mandates that if it is determined that a catastrophic error has
occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted
pursuant to the table set forth in paragraph (d)(3). However, if a
Customer is a party to the transaction and the adjustment would
result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower
(for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price, the
Customer order will be nullified.
\12\ See Rule 6.25(a)(1) (defining Customer for purposes of Rule
6.25 as not including a broker-dealer, Professional Customer, or
Voluntary Professional Customer).
\13\ See Rule 6.25(c)(4)(A) (stating that any non-Customer
Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size
Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4)). The Size
Adjustment Modifier may also apply to the option leg of a stock-
option order that is adjusted pursuant to proposed Rule 6.25.07(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), if a complex order executes
against individual legs and at least one of the leg(s) qualifies as an
Obvious Error or a Catastrophic Error, then the leg(s) that is an
Obvious or Catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the initial harmonized rule,
respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer.
However, because incoming complex orders may execute against resting
simple orders in the leg market and adjusting the execution price of
the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order, proposed Rule
6.25.07(a) also provides protection for Customer orders, stating that
where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer,
the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an
execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell
transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or
individual leg(s). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the
entire transaction will be nullified.
2. Complex Orders Executed Against Complex Orders
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(b) governs the review of
complex orders that are executed against other complex orders. Proposed
Rule 6.25.07(b) provides:
If a complex order executes against another complex order and at
least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph
(c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the
leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or
busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively,
so long as either: (i) The width of the National Spread Market for
the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction
was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote
table of paragraph (b)(3) or (ii) the net execution price of the
complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the National
Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the
erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount
shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a complex
order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. For
purposes of Rule 6.25, the National Spread Market for a complex
order strategy is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer of the
individual legs of the strategy.
As described above in relation to proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), the first
step is for the Exchange to review (upon receipt of a timely
notification in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2) of the
initial harmonized rule) the individual legs to determine whether a leg
or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error. If no leg
qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands--
no adjustment and no nullification.
Unlike proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), the Exchange also proposes to
compare the
[[Page 11250]]
net execution price of the entire complex order package to the National
Spread Market for the complex order strategy.\14\ Complex orders are
exempt from the order protection rules of the options exchanges.\15\
Thus, depending on the manner in which the systems of an options
exchange are calibrated, a complex order can execute without regard to
the prices offered in the complex order books or the leg markets of
other options exchanges. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to consider
the National Spread Market. Specifically, proposed Rule 6.25.07(b)
provides that if the Exchange determines that a leg or legs does
qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error, the leg or legs will be
adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the
initial harmonized rule, so long as either: (i) The width of the
National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the
erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth
in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the initial harmonized
rule or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher
(lower) than the offer (bid) of the National Spread Market for the
complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an
amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph
(c)(1) of the initial harmonized rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Spread Market is the derived net market for a
complex order package. See, e.g., Rule 6.53C.04 (utilizing the term
derived net market in the context of complex order strategies).
\15\ See Rule 6.81(b)(7). All options exchanges have the same
order protection rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of complex orders that meet the requirements of
proposed Rule 6.25.07(b), the Exchange proposes to apply the initial
harmonized rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in accordance with
paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying only paragraph (c)(4)(A) as is
the case under proposed Rule 6.25.07(a)) and catastrophic errors in
accordance with paragraph (d)(3). Therefore, for purposes of complex
orders under proposed Rule 6.25.07(b), if one of the legs is determined
to be an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1), all Customer
transactions will be nullified, unless a Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') submits 200 or more Customer transactions for review in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(C).\16\ For purposes of complex orders
under proposed Rule 6.25.07(b), if one of the legs is determined to be
a catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(3) and all of the other
requirements of proposed Rule 6.25.07(b) are met, all market
participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in
paragraph (d)(3). Again, however, pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) where at
least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the
transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an
execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell
transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or
individual leg(s). Also, if any leg of a complex order is nullified,
the entire transaction is nullified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Rule 6.25(c)(4)(C) also requires the orders resulting in
200 or more Customer transactions to have been submitted during the
course of 2 minutes or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Stock-Option Orders
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(c) governs stock-option
orders. Proposed Rule 6.25.07(c) provides:
If the option leg of a stock-option order qualifies as an
Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under
paragraph (d)(1), then the option leg that is an Obvious or
Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph
(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the
parties is a Customer. However, the option leg of any Customer order
subject to this paragraph (c) will be nullified if the adjustment
would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or
lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the
stock-option order, and the Exchange will attempt to nullify the
stock leg. Whenever a stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of
a stock-option order or whenever the stock leg cannot be executed,
the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the
parties to the transaction or in accordance with paragraph (c)(3).
Similar to proposed Interpretation and Policy .07(a), an option leg
(or legs) of a stock-option order must qualify as an obvious or
catastrophic error under the initial harmonized rule in order for the
stock-option order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error.
Also, similar to proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), if an option leg (or legs)
does qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error, the option leg (or
legs) will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or
(d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a
Customer. Again, as with proposed Rule 6.25.07(a), where at least one
party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will
nullify the option leg and attempt to nullify the stock leg if
adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy
transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's
limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s).
Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide guidance that whenever
the stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option
order, the option will be nullified upon request of one of the parties
to the transaction or by an Official acting on their own motion in
accordance with paragraph (c)(3). The Exchange states that there are
situations in which buyer and seller agree to trade a stock-option
order, but the stock leg cannot be executed. Thus, the Exchange
proposes to provide that whenever the stock portion of a stock-option
order cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon
request of one of the parties to the transaction or on an Official's
own motion.
In order to ensure that other options exchanges are able to adopt
rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate the effectiveness
of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposes to delay the
effectiveness of this proposal to April 17, 2017.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Commission Findings
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.\18\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
amended, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act
\19\ and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ which requires, among
other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In approving this proposed rule change, as amended, the
Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
\19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
\20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the proposal to amend Rule 6.25 will
help assure greater objectivity, transparency, and clarity with respect
to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions
and, in particular, those involving complex order or stock-option order
transactions. The Commission notes that the proposal is designed to
achieve more consistent results for participants across U.S. options
exchanges than under the initial harmonized rules, while maintaining a
fair and orderly market, protecting investors, and protecting the
public
[[Page 11251]]
interest. In particular, the proposal is designed to increase the
consistency and transparency in the handling of erroneous options
transactions among those options exchanges that allow complex order or
stock-option order transactions.
In its order approving the initial harmonized rule of BATS
Exchange, Inc., the Commission noted that the options exchanges
intended to work together to further develop additional objectivity
with respect to their processes for the adjustment and nullification of
erroneous options transactions.\21\ The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change to specifically delineate the treatment of
erroneous complex order or stock-option order transactions constitutes
an additional step towards this goal. Based on the foregoing, the
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \22\ in that proposed Rule 6.25 will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and
facilitating transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See BATS Order, supra note 5, at 16039.
\22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that the proposed rule change will become
operative on April 17, 2017. This delayed implementation is to ensure
that other options exchanges that permit transactions in complex orders
or stock-option orders will have sufficient time to put in place
similar rules consistent with this proposed rule change and to
coordinate the date of implementation of such harmonized rules.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
(SR-CBOE-2016-088) be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03295 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
