Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

DOCUMENT ID: [Release No. 34-48806; File No. SR-PCX-2003-61]

NOTICE: NOTICES

ACTION: Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:

SUBJECT CATEGORY: November 19, 2003. 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 October 30, 2003, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by PCX. PCX filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. On November 12, 2003, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 217 CFR 240.19b4.
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\4\ 17 CFR 240.19b4(f)(6).
\5\ See letter from Tanya Cho, Staff Attorney, Regulatory Policy, Exchange, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated November 12, 2003. Amendment No. 1 made nonsubstantive corrections to PCX's original Form 19b4 filing.
I. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange and its wholly owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (``PCXE'') are proposing to extend the pilot rule in PCX Rule 12.1, Commentary .02 and PCXE Rule 12.2(h), which requires industry parties in arbitration to waive application of contested California arbitrator disclosure standards, upon the request of customers (and, in industry cases, upon the request of associated persons with claims of statutory employment discrimination), for an additional sixmonth pilot period. II. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The PCX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose

On November 21, 2002, the Commission approved, for a sixmonth pilot period, the Exchange's proposal to amend PCX and PCXE arbitration rules to require industry parties in arbitration to waive application of contested California arbitrator disclosure standards, upon the request of customers or, in employment discrimination cases, upon the request of associated persons.\6\ The Commission approved an extension of the pilot period on May 15, 2003.\7\ The pilot period is currently set to expire on November 22, 2003.
\6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 46881 (November 21, 2002), 67 FR 71224 (November 29, 2002) (Order approving SRPCX200271). \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 47872 (May 15, 2003), 68 FR 28869 (May 27, 2003) (Order approving SRPCX200322).

On July 1, 2002, the Judicial Council of the State of California adopted new rules that mandated extensive disclosure requirements for arbitrators
[[Page 66522]]
in California (the ``California Standards''). The California Standards are intended to address perceived conflicts of interest in certain commercial arbitration proceedings. As a result of the imposition of the California Standards on arbitrations conducted under the auspices of selfregulatory organizations (``SROs''), the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') and the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') suspended the appointment of arbitrators for cases pending in California, and filed a joint complaint in federal court for declaratory relief in which they contend that the California Standards cannot lawfully be applied to NASD and NYSE because the California Standards are preempted by federal law and are inapplicable to SROs under state law.\8\ Subsequently, in the interest of continuing to provide investors with an arbitral forum in California pending the resolution of the applicability of the California Standards, the NASD and NYSE filed separate rule proposals with the Commission that would temporarily require their members to waive the California Standards if all nonmember parties to arbitration have done so. The Commission approved the NASD's rule proposal on September 26, 2002\9\ and the NYSE's rule proposal on November 12, 2002.\10\ Both the NASD and the NYSE recently filed rule proposals to further extend the pilot period for an additional six months.\11\
\8\ See NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of California, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2002), Notice of Appeal filed December 12, 2002, available on the NASD Web site at: http://www.nasdadr.com/pdftext/ca_appeal_notice.pdf .
\9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 46562 (September 26, 2002), 67 FR 62085 (October 3, 2002) (Order approving SRNASD2002126). Thereafter, the pilot period was extended to September 30, 2003. See Exchange Act Release No. 48187 (July 16, 2003), 68 FR 43553 (July 23, 2003) (Order approving SRNASD2003106).
\10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 46816 (November 12, 2002), 67 FR 69793 (November 19, 2002) (Order approving SRNYSE200256). Thereafter, the pilot period was extended to September 30, 2003. See Exchange Act Release No. 47836 (May 12, 2003), 68 FR 27608 (May 20, 2003) (Order approving SRNYSE200316).
\11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 48553 (September 26, 2003), 68 FR 57494 (October 3, 2003) (Order approving SRNASD2003144) and Exchange Act Release No. 48552 (September 26, 2003), 68 FR 57496 (October 3, 2003) (Order approving SRNYSE200328).

Since the NASD's and NYSE's lawsuit relating to the application of the California Standards has not been resolved, PCX is now requesting an extension of the pilot for an additional six months (or until the pending litigation has resolved the question of whether or not the California Standards apply to SROs).\12\ PCX requests that the pilot be extended for six months beginning on November 23, 2003. The extension of time permits the Exchange to continue the arbitration process using PCX rules regarding arbitration disclosures and not the California Standards. No substantive changes are being made to the pilot program, other than extending the operation of pilot program.
\12\ See also Mayo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. et. al., 258 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2003) in which the District Court for the Northern District of California held that the California Standards, at least as applied to SROs, are preempted by federal law. As this decision was rendered on April 22, 2003, it is still subject to appeal.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by ensuring that members and member organizations and the public have a fair and impartial forum for the resolution of their disputes.
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
B. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
C. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

PCX has designated the proposed rule change as one that: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act.
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

\15\ 17 CFR 240.19b4(f)(6).

Pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act,\16\ the proposal may not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, and the self regulatory organization must file notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days beforehand. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the fiveday pre filing requirement and the 30day operative delay so that the proposed rule change will become immediately effective upon filing.

\16\ 17 CFR 240.19b4(f)(6)(iii).

The Commission believes that waiving the fiveday prefiling provision and the 30day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.\17\ Waiving the pre filing requirement and accelerating the operative date will merely extend a pilot program that is designed to provide investors with a mechanism to resolve disputes with brokerdealers. During the period of this extension, the Commission and the Exchange will continue to monitor the status of the previously discussed litigation. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as effective and operative immediately.
\17\ For purposes of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 205490609. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All [[Page 66523]]
submissions should refer to File No. SRPCX200361 and should be submitted by December 17 2003.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
\18\ 17 CFR 200.303(a)(12).
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 0329576 Filed 112503; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 801001P

SUMMARY: Pacific Exchange, Inc.,

DOCUMENT BODY 2: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 217 CFR 240.19b4.
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
\4\ 17 CFR 240.19b4(f)(6).
\5\ See letter from Tanya Cho, Staff Attorney, Regulatory Policy, Exchange, to Nancy Sanow, Assistant Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, dated November 12, 2003. Amendment No. 1 made nonsubstantive corrections to PCX's original Form 19b4 filing.
I. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange and its wholly owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (``PCXE'') are proposing to extend the pilot rule in PCX Rule 12.1, Commentary .02 and PCXE Rule 12.2(h), which requires industry parties in arbitration to waive application of contested California arbitrator disclosure standards, upon the request of customers (and, in industry cases, upon the request of associated persons with claims of statutory employment discrimination), for an additional sixmonth pilot period. II. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The PCX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose

On November 21, 2002, the Commission approved, for a sixmonth pilot period, the Exchange's proposal to amend PCX and PCXE arbitration rules to require industry parties in arbitration to waive application of contested California arbitrator disclosure standards, upon the request of customers or, in employment discrimination cases, upon the request of associated persons.\6\ The Commission approved an extension of the pilot period on May 15, 2003.\7\ The pilot period is currently set to expire on November 22, 2003.
\6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 46881 (November 21, 2002), 67 FR 71224 (November 29, 2002) (Order approving SRPCX200271). \7\ See Exchange Act Release No. 47872 (May 15, 2003), 68 FR 28869 (May 27, 2003) (Order approving SRPCX200322).

On July 1, 2002, the Judicial Council of the State of California adopted new rules that mandated extensive disclosure requirements for arbitrators
[[Page 66522]]
in California (the ``California Standards''). The California Standards are intended to address perceived conflicts of interest in certain commercial arbitration proceedings. As a result of the imposition of the California Standards on arbitrations conducted under the auspices of selfregulatory organizations (``SROs''), the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') and the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') suspended the appointment of arbitrators for cases pending in California, and filed a joint complaint in federal court for declaratory relief in which they contend that the California Standards cannot lawfully be applied to NASD and NYSE because the California Standards are preempted by federal law and are inapplicable to SROs under state law.\8\ Subsequently, in the interest of continuing to provide investors with an arbitral forum in California pending the resolution of the applicability of the California Standards, the NASD and NYSE filed separate rule proposals with the Commission that would temporarily require their members to waive the California Standards if all nonmember parties to arbitration have done so. The Commission approved the NASD's rule proposal on September 26, 2002\9\ and the NYSE's rule proposal on November 12, 2002.\10\ Both the NASD and the NYSE recently filed rule proposals to further extend the pilot period for an additional six months.\11\
\8\ See NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of California, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2002), Notice of Appeal filed December 12, 2002, available on the NASD Web site at: http://www.nasdadr.com/pdftext/ca_appeal_notice.pdf .
\9\ See Exchange Act Release No. 46562 (September 26, 2002), 67 FR 62085 (October 3, 2002) (Order approving SRNASD2002126). Thereafter, the pilot period was extended to September 30, 2003. See Exchange Act Release No. 48187 (July 16, 2003), 68 FR 43553 (July 23, 2003) (Order approving SRNASD2003106).
\10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 46816 (November 12, 2002), 67 FR 69793 (November 19, 2002) (Order approving SRNYSE200256). Thereafter, the pilot period was extended to September 30, 2003. See Exchange Act Release No. 47836 (May 12, 2003), 68 FR 27608 (May 20, 2003) (Order approving SRNYSE200316).
\11\ See Exchange Act Release No. 48553 (September 26, 2003), 68 FR 57494 (October 3, 2003) (Order approving SRNASD2003144) and Exchange Act Release No. 48552 (September 26, 2003), 68 FR 57496 (October 3, 2003) (Order approving SRNYSE200328).

Since the NASD's and NYSE's lawsuit relating to the application of the California Standards has not been resolved, PCX is now requesting an extension of the pilot for an additional six months (or until the pending litigation has resolved the question of whether or not the California Standards apply to SROs).\12\ PCX requests that the pilot be extended for six months beginning on November 23, 2003. The extension of time permits the Exchange to continue the arbitration process using PCX rules regarding arbitration disclosures and not the California Standards. No substantive changes are being made to the pilot program, other than extending the operation of pilot program.
\12\ See also Mayo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. et. al., 258 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2003) in which the District Court for the Northern District of California held that the California Standards, at least as applied to SROs, are preempted by federal law. As this decision was rendered on April 22, 2003, it is still subject to appeal.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by ensuring that members and member organizations and the public have a fair and impartial forum for the resolution of their disputes.
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
B. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
C. SelfRegulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

PCX has designated the proposed rule change as one that: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act.
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

\15\ 17 CFR 240.19b4(f)(6).

Pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act,\16\ the proposal may not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, and the self regulatory organization must file notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days beforehand. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the fiveday pre filing requirement and the 30day operative delay so that the proposed rule change will become immediately effective upon filing.

\16\ 17 CFR 240.19b4(f)(6)(iii).

The Commission believes that waiving the fiveday prefiling provision and the 30day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.\17\ Waiving the pre filing requirement and accelerating the operative date will merely extend a pilot program that is designed to provide investors with a mechanism to resolve disputes with brokerdealers. During the period of this extension, the Commission and the Exchange will continue to monitor the status of the previously discussed litigation. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as effective and operative immediately.
\17\ For purposes of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 205490609. 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All [[Page 66523]]
submissions should refer to File No. SRPCX200361 and should be submitted by December 17 2003.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
\18\ 17 CFR 200.303(a)(12).
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 0329576 Filed 112503; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 801001P