[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43809-43813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17614]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-72649; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-020]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA
Rule 2081, Prohibited Conditions Relating to Expungement of Customer
Dispute Information
July 22, 2014.
I. Introduction
On April 14, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt Rule 2081 to prohibit member firms and
associated persons from conditioning or seeking to condition settlement
of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate the
customer for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose,
the firm's or associated person's request to expunge the customer
dispute information which was the subject of the settlement from the
Central Registration Depository (CRD[supreg]). The proposal was
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 23, 2014.\3\ The
Commission received 15 comments on the proposal.\4\ The Commission also
received a letter from FINRA responding to commenters.\5\ This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71959 (April 17,
2014), 79 FR 22734 (SR-FINRA-2014-020) (``Notice'').
\4\ See Exhibit A for a list of comment letters.
\5\ See Letter to Kevin O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Commission,
from Victoria Crane, Associate General Counsel, FINRA, dated July
18, 2014 (``FINRA Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposal
A. Background
The CRD is the central licensing and registration system for the
securities industry. In general, information in the CRD is provided by
broker-dealers, associated persons, and regulatory authorities in
response to questions on the uniform registration forms.\6\ These forms
require the disclosure of administrative and disciplinary information
about registered personnel, including customer complaints, arbitration
claims, and court filings made by customers, and the arbitration awards
or court judgments that may result from those claims or filings
(``customer dispute information'').\7\ FINRA, state regulators, and
other regulators use this information in connection with their
licensing and regulatory activities. Firms also use the information
when making hiring decisions. In addition, the information that FINRA
releases to the public through BrokerCheck[supreg] is a subset of the
information in the CRD. Thus, any
[[Page 43810]]
information that is removed from CRD is no longer available through
BrokerCheck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry
Registration or Transfer), Form U5 (Uniform Termination Notice for
Securities Industry Registration), and Form U6 (Uniform Disciplinary
Action Reporting Form).
\7\ See Notice to Members (``NTM'') 04-16 (March 2004). See also
Section 15A(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brokers who wish to have customer dispute information removed from
the CRD because, for example, they believe that the allegations made
against them are unfounded or that they have been incorrectly
identified, must seek expungement pursuant to FINRA Rule 2080 (formerly
NASD Rule 2130).\8\ Rule 2080 requires firms and associated persons
seeking expungement of customer dispute information from the CRD to
obtain a court order that either directs expungement or confirms an
arbitration award containing expungement relief. The rule requires that
firms and associated persons seeking a court order or confirmation of
an arbitration award name FINRA as a party to the proceeding. Upon
request, FINRA may waive the obligation to be named as a party if FINRA
determines that the expungement relief is based on an affirmative
judicial or arbitral finding that: (1) The claim, allegation or
information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous; (2) the
registered person was not involved in the alleged investment-related
sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation or
conversion of funds; or (3) the claim, allegation or information is
false.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48933 (December 16,
2003), 68 FR 74667 (December 24, 2003) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-2002-168). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59987
(May 27, 2009), 74 FR 26902 (June 4, 2009) (Order Approving File No.
SR-FINRA-2009-016).
The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD)
changed its name to FINRA in 2007. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190 (August 1, 2007)
Order Approving File No. SR-NASD-2007-053.
\9\ See Rule 2080(b)(1). FINRA stated that while expungement of
customer dispute information is an extraordinary measure, it is
nevertheless appropriate where the information being expunged meets
one of the criteria specified in Rule 2080 and has no meaningful
investor protection or regulatory value. See Notice, supra note 3,
79 FR 22734 at 22735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA states that it has long had concerns about the practice of
firms and associated persons conditioning settlement agreements for the
purpose of obtaining expungement relief and, thereby, removing
information from CRD that could be useful to investors. FINRA notes
that it has taken numerous steps over the years to address its concerns
regarding expungement. For example, in proposing NASD Rule 2130, the
NASD (now FINRA) stated that the affirmative determination requirement
imposed by the Rule on arbitrators would reduce, if not eliminate, the
risk of expunging information that is critical to investor protection
and regulatory interests based on an agreement between the parties.\10\
In NTM 04-43, NASD cautioned firms and associated persons that
negotiating settlements with customers in return for exculpatory
affidavits that the firm or associated person knows or should know are
false or misleading is a violation of NASD rules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Letter from Shirley H. Weiss, Associate General
Counsel, NASD, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated September
11, 2003. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48933, supra
note 8, 68 FR 74667.
\11\ In addition, NASD noted that ``[a]s a general matter, in
connection with settling arbitration claims and/or other complaints,
members may not engage in any conduct that impedes the ability of
[FINRA] or any other securities industry regulator to investigate
potential violations of [FINRA] rules or the securities laws. Such
conditions would include . . . procuring, as a condition to
settlement, affidavits or other statements from customers that
falsely or misleadingly repudiate or otherwise contradict prior
claims or complaints made by customers.'' See NTM 04-43 (June 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, FINRA proposed and the Commission approved, Rule 12805 to
require arbitrators to perform additional fact finding before
recommending expungement of customer dispute information from the
CRD.\12\ Rule 12805 requires arbitrators, among other things, to review
settlement documents, the amount of payments made to any party, and any
other terms and conditions of the settlement. In addition, the Rule
requires arbitrators to indicate in the award which of the grounds in
Rule 2080 serves as the basis for their expungement recommendation and
to provide a brief written explanation of the reasons for recommending
expungement. FINRA stated that it believed that these requirements
would address concerns about arbitrators recommending expungement under
what might appear to be questionable facts and circumstances (e.g.,
cases that include payment of significant monetary compensation to the
customer).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58886 (October 30,
2008), 73 FR 66086 (November 6, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2008-010), which also adopted Rule 13805 to establish
procedures that arbitrators must follow when considering requests
for expungement relief in connection with intra-industry disputes.
\13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57572 (March 27,
2008), 73 FR 18308 (April 3, 2008) (Notice of File No. SR-FINRA-
2008-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA states that due to concerns about the high percentage of
expungement recommendations made in connection with settled arbitration
claims, in 2013, FINRA sent to arbitrators, and published on its Web
site, guidance stating that arbitrators should inquire whether a party
conditioned settlement on an agreement not to oppose a request for
expungement relief in determining whether to recommend expungement
relief in settled arbitration claims.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Notice to Arbitrators and Parties on Expanded
Expungement Guidance, available at http://www.finra.org/arbitrationandmediation/arbitration/specialprocedures/expungement/
(``Expanded Expungement Guidance''). Specifically, the guidance
states: ``Arbitrators should inquire and fully consider whether a
party conditioned a settlement of the arbitration upon agreement not
to oppose the request for expungement in cases in which the investor
does not participate in the expungement hearing or the requesting
party states that an investor has indicated that he or she will not
oppose the expungement request.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposal
Despite these measures, FINRA states that it continues to have
concerns regarding the practice of firms and associated persons
conditioning settlement agreements for the purpose of obtaining
expungement relief in settlements involving customer disputes, as well
as those related to arbitration claims. FINRA believes these agreements
should be prohibited even if the customer offers not to oppose
expungement as part of negotiating a settlement agreement. Further,
FINRA believes that firms and associated persons should be prohibited
from otherwise compensating customers in return for the customer's
agreement not to oppose a request for expungement relief which would
remove customer dispute information from the CRD.
Accordingly, FINRA proposed Rule 2081 to expressly prohibit this
conduct. Specifically, Rule 2081 would provide that: ``No member or
associated person shall condition or seek to condition settlement of a
dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate the customer
for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the
member's or associated person's request to expunge such customer
dispute information from the CRD system.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The proposed rule change would not affect the processes
relating to requests for expungement relief set forth in Rules 2080,
12805 and 13805. Thus, if an arbitration panel considers whether
expungement is appropriate and consistent with Rule 12805, a
customer would be free to express support for, or opposition to, the
firm's or associated person's request for expungement as part of the
recorded hearing session required by Rule 12805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA states the prohibition would apply to both written and oral
agreements, and the proposal would apply to agreements entered into
during the course of settlement negotiations, as well as to any
agreements entered into separate from such negotiations. For example,
the proposed rule change would preclude a firm or associated person
from conditioning the settlement of a customer's claim on the
customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the firm's or
associated person's
[[Page 43811]]
request for expungement. In addition, the proposed rule change would
preclude a firm or associated person, following settlement of the
underlying customer dispute, from compensating the customer in return
for the customer not opposing the firm's or associated person's
expungement request.
FINRA states that as an alternative to proposed Rule 2081, some
industry representatives suggested that FINRA consider enhanced
arbitrator training.\16\ Since adopting NASD Rule 2130 in 2004, FINRA
has required all arbitrators to take a training course on expungement.
Recently, FINRA significantly revised its training for arbitrators
regarding expungement. The revised training became available on FINRA's
Web site on February 28, 2014.\17\ The revised training highlights the
importance of the information in the CRD and the arbitrator's critical
role in maintaining the integrity of disclosure information contained
in CRD. While FINRA recognizes the importance of arbitrator training in
the expungement process, and anticipates that the revised training will
further focus arbitrators' attention on the appropriate analysis
associated with determining whether to recommend expungement, FINRA
states that it remains concerned about parties to a settlement
agreement ``bargaining for'' expungement relief as a condition to
settlement. The proposed rule change would address this concern by
expressly prohibiting firms and associated persons from conditioning
settlement agreements, or otherwise compensating customers, for the
purpose of obtaining expungement relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR 22734 at 22735.
\17\ See FINRA Arbitrator Training Online Learning Courses,
available at http://www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/Arbitrators/Training/AdvancedTraining/P124939. All arbitrator
applicants must complete this training to become eligible to serve
on arbitration cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Comments and FINRA's Response
The Commission received 15 comment letters on the proposed rule
change.\18\ Twelve commenters support the proposal,\19\ one of which
requested clarification regarding the proposed rule.\20\ Of the three
remaining commenters, one commenter neither supports nor opposes the
proposal; the commenter is against expungement under any
circumstances.\21\ Another commenter supports the concept but is
against the proposal as drafted.\22\ The third commenter did not opine
on the merits of the proposal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See supra, note 4.
\19\ See Aidikoff, Amato, Bakhtiari, Caruso, Friedman, FSI, GSU,
NASAA, Pace, PIABA, SIFMA, and Steiner letters.
\20\ See SIFMA letter.
\21\ See Estell letter.
\22\ See Ryder letter.
\23\ See Jacobowitz letter. The commenter provided information
regarding the decrease in the percentage of expungements granted
after FINRA issued the Expanded Expungement Guidance. See supra note
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 12 commenters who support the proposal, five \24\ express
concern that the proposal may not go far enough ``in preventing
expungements at unacceptably high rates,'' \25\ ``ensuring expungements
are the exception rather than the rule,'' \26\ and addressing ``the
multitude of other issues that are associated with expungement'' which
``undermine investor confidence and threaten the protection of
investors.'' \27\ Several of these commenters provide suggestions
regarding additional steps that FINRA should take to improve the
expungement process.\28\ In response, FINRA states that it will
continue to monitor the effectiveness of the training and other
resource materials on expungement it has provided to arbitrators and
make any additions or changes as necessary.\29\ In addition, FINRA
states that, while it believes these comments are outside the scope of
the proposal, it is continuously looking at ways to improve the
expungement process and appreciates commenters' suggestions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Caruso, GSU, PIABA, NASAA, and Steiner letters.
\25\ See PIABA letter at 2.
\26\ See GSU letter at 2. See also PIABA letter at 3.
\27\ See Caruso letter. The letter does not specify the other
issues to which it refers.
\28\ See, e.g., GSU, PIABA, NASAA, and Steiner letters.
\29\ See FINRA Response Letter at 6.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter believes that certain statements in FINRA's Notice
could constitute an additional substantive requirement for expungement
relief--that the information being expunged has no meaningful investor
protection or regulatory value.\31\ In response, FINRA states that
FINRA's references to expungement relief being appropriate when the
information to be expunged has no meaningful investor protection or
regulatory value is not a new requirement, as FINRA has made this
statement several times in the past.\32\ In addition, FINRA states that
this reference is not intended to expand the criteria in Rule 2080, but
rather to emphasize the investor protection and regulatory concerns
relating to expungement of customer dispute information from the
CRD.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See SIFMA letter at 2-3.
\32\ See FINRA Response Letter at 7.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to another commenter, who takes no issue with the
concept, the proposal as drafted is overbroad.\34\ That commenter
believes a respondent should be able to openly ask a claimant ``to
stipulate to the issue of expungement relief being withheld from the
anticipated settlement for the purpose of further proceedings,''
believing that a respondent should retain the right to condition a
settlement upon a stipulation that the parties will request the
arbitrators to consider the remaining or outstanding issue of
expungement relief.\35\ In addition, this commenter believes that
respondents should have the right to ask claimants whether they plan to
be present at the expungement hearings, and what their stance will be
on the issue of expungement.\36\ In response, FINRA states that the
proposal would not prevent parties from clarifying in the settlement
agreement that expungement is not addressed in the agreement, nor would
it preclude a respondent from inquiring whether any party intends to
support or oppose a request for expungement relief.\37\ However, FINRA
states that it would consider any actions by a member firm to influence
another party to a settlement agreement for purposes of obtaining
expungement relief, whether expressly or otherwise, to be a potential
violation of the proposed rule.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Ryder letter.
\35\ Id.
\36\ Id.
\37\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter asks FINRA to clarify whether member firms may
include recitals in settlement agreements to the effect that: (i) The
respondent intends to seek expungement relief; (ii) such expungement
request was not a condition of the settlement agreement; (iii)
respondent has not paid any consideration related to the expungement
request; and (iv) claimant may participate in the hearing on
expungement if he/she so chooses.\39\ In response, FINRA states that
the proposed rule change would not prohibit a respondent from including
such recitals in the settlement agreement, and believes their inclusion
would reinforce the concept that parties cannot offer or receive any
consideration for expungement relief as a condition to settlement.\40\
FINRA also notes that it will issue guidance, as needed, to clarify the
rule's applicability
[[Page 43812]]
to particular facts and circumstances as questions arise.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See SIFMA letter at 1-2.
\40\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter is concerned with how FINRA will enforce the new
rule. This commenter believes that firms or associated persons may
attempt to skirt the rule and include prohibited conditions to
settlement in cover letters or emails that are not seen by arbitrators,
or enter into unrecorded oral agreements with customers.\42\ The
commenter states that there should be a specific enforcement mechanism
and clear consequences for failing to comply with the rule.\43\ While
concerned about how the rule will be enforced, the commenter states
that the rule ``would further prevent firms from using expungement as a
bargaining chip in settlement negotiations and could allow for a more
balanced presentation to the arbitrators of the facts of a dispute.''
\44\ In response to this commenter's concerns, FINRA states that the
proposal's prohibition would apply to written and oral agreements and
agreements entered into during the course of, and separate from,
settlement negotiations, regardless of when or in what form.\45\ In
addition, FINRA states that it will update its arbitrator guidance to
incorporate the new rule and to further emphasize the importance of
arbitrators inquiring whether a party conditioned settlement on an
agreement that the customer not oppose a request for expungement. In
response to concerns regarding enforcement, FINRA states that a
violation of the proposed rule would subject member firms and their
associated persons to a variety of applicable sanctions, including
possible disciplinary action for violation of FINRA Rules, including
Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade), and
other penalties, and refers the commenter to Rule 8310 (Sanctions for
Violations of Rules).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See NASAA letter at 3.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id. at 2.
\45\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion and Commission Findings
After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change and the comment
letters, 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
association.\47\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\48\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
\48\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, prohibiting member firms and associated persons from
conditioning or seeking to condition settlement of a dispute with a
customer on, or otherwise compensating the customer for, the customer's
agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the firm's or associated
person's request to expunge information regarding customer disputes and
arbitration claims from the CRD should help assure that accurate and
complete customer dispute information remains available to the
investing public, regulators, and broker-dealers. As discussed above,
current FINRA rules, on their face, permit expungement only in very
narrow circumstances and after a series of procedural steps has been
satisfied. In the first instance, FINRA rules set a high bar for
arbitrators before they grant expungement of customer dispute
information, requiring a finding that the claim or allegation is
factually impossible, clearly erroneous or false, or that the
registered person was not involved in the alleged wrongdoing.\49\ FINRA
has emphasized to arbitrators that expungement is an extraordinary
remedy that should be granted only when the information to be expunged
has no meaningful investor protection or regulatory value, and that
arbitrators should ensure that they have all of the information
necessary to make an informed and appropriate recommendation on
expungement.\50\ A court order directing expungement or confirming an
arbitration award containing expungement relief also is required.\51\
Furthermore, FINRA must be named as a party in the judicial
proceedings, and may waive its right to be named only if FINRA
determines that the expungement relief is based on affirmative judicial
or arbitral findings that the claim or allegation is factually
impossible, clearly erroneous or false, or that the registered person
was not involved in the alleged wrongdoing.\52\ Despite the very narrow
permissible grounds and procedural protections designed to assure
expungement is an extraordinary remedy, however, arbitrators appear to
grant expungement relief in a very high percentage of settled
cases.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See FINRA Rules 2080 and 12805. Among other things, in
cases involving settlements, the arbitrators must review the
settlement documents and consider the amount of payments made to any
party and other terms and conditions of the settlement.
\50\ See Expanded Expungement Guidance, supra note 14. FINRA
also reminded arbitrators of their obligation to provide a written
explanation of the reasons for finding one of the narrow enumerated
grounds applies to the facts of the case before them, and stated
that such written explanation should be complete and not just a
recitation of one of the enumerated grounds or of language in the
expungement request. Specifically, arbitrators should identify the
reason(s) for granting the expungement request and any specific
documentary or other evidence they relied upon in so doing.
\51\ See FINRA Rule 2080.
\52\ Id. Under extraordinary circumstances FINRA may waive its
right to be named a party if it determines that the expungement
relief and accompanying findings are meritorious and the expungement
would have no material adverse effect on investor protection, the
integrity of the CRD, or regulatory requirements.
\53\ See PIABA letter at 2. The PIABA Expungement Study found
that for the time period January 1, 2007 through mid[hyphen]May
2009, expungement was granted in 89 percent of the cases resolved by
stipulated awards or settlement, and for the time period
mid[hyphen]May 2009 through the end of 2011, expungement relief was
granted in 96.9 percent of the cases resolved by settlements or
stipulated awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The completeness of information in the CRD, including accurate
customer dispute information, is critical for the protection of
investors and effective regulatory oversight. In the context of
settlement or other negotiations, the aggrieved customer's individual
interest in compensation or other remedies may dominate, without due
consideration for the effect of expungement on the public or regulatory
interests. The proposed rule change, by eliminating the ability of
parties to a customer dispute to bargain for expungement relief as a
condition to a settlement agreement or otherwise, should help assure
that negotiated customer consents or non-objections do not unduly
influence the judicial or arbitral decision that expungement is
appropriate. This should enhance the integrity of information in the
CRD, to the benefit of the investing public and regulators. In
addition, the Commission believes the proposed rule's application to
both written and oral agreements, as well as any agreements separate
from the negotiations, and the prohibition from compensating the
customer following settlement for not opposing an expungement request
are important aspects of the proposed rule change.
Although the proposed rule change is a constructive step to help
assure that the expungement of customer dispute information is an
extraordinary remedy
[[Page 43813]]
that is permitted only in the appropriate narrow circumstances
contemplated by FINRA rules, the Commission notes the high number of
cases where arbitrators grant brokers' expungement requests. When
information is expunged from the CRD, it is no longer available to
regulators, broker-dealers, or the investing public. Both regulators
and the investing public are disadvantaged when factual information is
removed from the CRD.\54\ The Commission encourages FINRA to conduct a
comprehensive review of its expungement rules and procedures to
determine whether additional rulemaking is necessary or appropriate to
assure that expungement in fact is treated as an extraordinary remedy
that is permitted only where the information to be expunged has no
meaningful investor protection or regulatory value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Indeed, Section 15A(i) of the Act requires FINRA to collect
and make available ``information reported in connection with the
registration or licensing of brokers and dealers and their
associated persons, including disciplinary actions, regulatory,
judicial, and arbitration proceedings, and other information
required by law or exchange or association rule, and the source and
status of such information. See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(i)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
V. Conclusion
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\55\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2014-020), be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
\56\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\56\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
Exhibit A--List of Comment Letters Received for SR-FINRA-2014-020
1. Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso, P.C., dated April 21,
2014 (``Caruso'')
2. Nicole Iannarone, Assistant Clinical Professor, Tim Guilmette,
Student Intern, and Nataliya Obikhod, Student Intern, Georgia State
University College of Law, dated May 1, 2014 (``GSU'')
3. Philip M. Aidikoff, Aidikoff, Uhl and Bakhtiari, dated May 1,
2014 (``Aidikoff'')
4. Ryan K. Bakhtiari, Aidikoff, Uhl and Bakhtiari, dated May 5, 2014
(``Bakhtiari'')
5. Richard P. Ryder, dated May 5, 2014 (``Ryder'')
6. Leonard Steiner, Steiner & Libo, PC, dated May 6, 2014
(``Steiner'')
7. Barry D. Estell, dated May 7, 2014 (``Estell'')
8. George H. Friedman, George H. Friedman Consulting, LLC, dated May
13, 2014 (``Friedman'')
9. Jason Doss, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar
Association, dated May 13, 2014 (``PIABA'')
10. David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Financial Services Institute, dated May 14, 2014 (``FSI'')
11. Andrea Seidt, North American Securities Administrators
Association (``NASAA'') President and Ohio Securities Commissioner,
dated May 14, 2014 (``NASAA'')
12. Jill Gross, Director, Elissa Germaine, Supervising Attorney, and
Michelle N. Robinson, Student Intern, John Jay Legal Services, Inc.,
Pace University School of Law, dated May 14, 2014 (``Pace'')
13. Kevin M. Carroll, Managing Director and Associate General
Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association,
dated May 14, 2014 (``SIFMA'')
14. Ronald M. Amato, Amato Law Firm, LLC, dated May 15, 2014
(``Amato'')
15. Harry A. Jacobowitz, Database Manager, Securities Arbitration
Commentator, Inc., dated May 16, 2014 (``Jacobowitz'')
[FR Doc. 2014-17614 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P