November 2, 2007
Paul L. Richards
2nd November 2007
Office of the Secretariat
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549-1090
Attn: Ms. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary
VIA: Electronic Mail ONLY: Rule-Comments@SEC.gov
Ladies and Gentlemen,
RE: FILE NUMBER SR-CBOE-2007-107 and SR-CBOE-2006-106
This note is in response to CBOEs submission to the SEC dated October 23, 2007, written by Paul E. Dengel at SR-CBOE-2007-107.
CBOE continues their quest to somehow use Eminent Domain to claim and extinguish the property rights and trading rights of CBOT Exercisers. Their justification seems to be that since CBOT members have received substantial financial remuneration and value elsewhere, that that somehow discharges the CBOEs contractual obligation to compensate CBOT Exerciser Members. However, the Delaware Courts will be the arbiter of compensation due, not the CBOE.
CBOE and its Board were charged with representing ALL of its members – including CBOT Exercisers, who, at the time, were the same as CBOE members - at least before CBOE confiscated our Exercise Rights. So, in fact, contrary to Mr. Dengels submission, their actions DID harm CBOTs Exerciser members by first removing their rights to Exercise and then by burdening those already Exercised with extortionist fees to remain CBOE members – fees that werent charged to every member, but only to the former CBOT Exercisers.
CBOE goes on to try to explain that their Transition Rule addresses SEC mandates to avoid market disruption until the SEC approves SR-CBOE-2006-106. While it may be true that some type of transition plan needed to be in place, CBOE rightly should have chosen the path of least resistance – namely, leaving the Exercised CBOT members in place – maintaining the status quo – until a ruling was handed down by the SEC. By handling it this way, CBOE would have avoided the potentially disruptive and destabilizing effect on CBOEs markets from such a sudden loss of traders that seems to be of such importance to them, and not disenfranchised a large percentage of their own membership.
In conclusion, it is obvious that CBOE is trying every angle to confiscate property owned by CBOT Exercisers and expropriate it for their benefit. Please deny the CBOE on each of their rule submissions: SR-CBOE-2006-106, SR-CBOE-2007-77, SR-CBOE-2007-091 and SR-CBOE-2007-106.
Paul L. Richards
CBOT Full Member since 1990