U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC Seal
Home | Previous Page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

SEC News Digest

Issue 2008-153
August 7, 2008

COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS

Citigroup Agrees in Principle to Auction Rate Securities Settlement

Firm Will Provide Liquidity and Remediate Losses

The Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Enforcement today announced a preliminary settlement in principle with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Citi) including proposed charges and a plan that would give individual investors, small businesses, and charities all $7.5 billion of their money back from auction rate securities (ARS) they purchased from the firm. The agreement also would require Citi to use its best efforts to liquidate by the end of 2009 all of the approximately $12 billion worth of ARS the firm sold to retirement plans and other institutional investors.

The ARS market collapsed in mid-February 2008, leaving tens of thousands of Citi customers holding nearly $20 billion of these illiquid securities for an indefinite period of time. The conduct underlying the proposed charges stems from Citi's marketing of ARS to many of its customers as highly liquid investments, including as money market investments. The liquidity of these securities, however, was premised on Citi providing support bids for auctions it managed when there was not enough customer demand. When Citi stopped supporting auctions in February 2008, there were widespread auction failures. As a result, thousands of Citi customers were left holding illiquid securities.

Linda Chatman Thomsen, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said, "Today's agreement in principle provides real relief to investors. In a short period of time, about 38,000 individual, small business, and charitable organization investor accounts will receive nearly $7.5 billion in liquidity, and Citi will begin the process of restoring liquidity to over 2,600 institutional investors who hold approximately $12 billion in auction rate securities. This settlement in principle is an outstanding example of federal and state regulatory cooperation for the benefit of investors and markets."

The terms of the agreement in principle, which are subject to finalization, review and approval by the Commission:

  • Citi will be permanently enjoined from violating the provisions of Section 15(c) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 15c1-2 thereunder, which prohibit the use of manipulative or deceptive devices by broker-dealers.

  • Citi will liquidate at par all ARS from its retail customers, which include all natural persons, charities, and small businesses, no later than three months from today.

  • Citi will make whole any losses sustained by customers who purchased ARS before Feb. 12, 2008, and sold such securities after that date at a loss.

  • Citi will use its best efforts to liquidate ARS from its institutional customers by the end of 2009.

  • Until Citi actually provides for the liquidation of the securities on the schedule set forth above, Citi will provide no-cost loans to customers that will remain outstanding until the ARS are repurchased, and will reimburse customers for any interest costs incurred under any prior loan programs the firm provided to its ARS customers.

  • Citi will not liquidate its own inventory of a particular ARS before it liquidates its customers' holding in that security.

  • To the extent that a customer has incurred consequential damages beyond the loss of liquidity in the customer's holdings of ARS (which should be restored pursuant to the settlement terms above), Citi will participate in a special arbitration process that the customer may elect, and that will be overseen by FINRA, whereby Citi will not contest liability for its misrepresentations and omissions concerning the ARS, but may challenge the existence or amount of any consequential damages; the arbitration claim will be heard by a single, non-industry arbitrator.

  • This arbitration process will be voluntary on the part of the customer and if a customer elects not to take advantage of these special procedures, a customer may pursue all other arbitration or legal or equitable remedies available through any other administrative or judicial process available to the customer.

  • Citi will provide notice to all customers of the settlement terms.

  • Citi will establish a telephone assistance line, with appropriate staffing, to respond to questions from customers concerning the terms of the settlement.

  • Citi faces the prospect of a financial penalty to the SEC after it has completed its obligations under the settlement agreement. Determinations as to the amount of the penalty, if any, will take into account, among other things, an assessment of whether Citi has satisfactorily completed its obligations under the settlement, and the costs incurred by Citi in meeting those obligations, including penalties incurred and the cost of remediation.

The Commission notes the substantial assistance and cooperation from the New York Attorney General, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA), and Texas securities authorities.

The Commission's investigation is continuing as to individuals and other entities that participate in the auction rate securities market.

For more information, contact:

Fredric Firestone
Associate Director, SEC's Division of Enforcement
202-551-4711

Kenneth R. Lench
Assistant Director, SEC's Division of Enforcement
202-551-4938

(Press Rel. 2008-168)


SEC Announces Two New Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Initiatives

The Securities and Exchange Commission staff today unveiled a new one-stop online reference site to assist mutual funds in their anti-money laundering (AML) compliance efforts, and launched a new centralized phone line specifically for securities firms to report the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) that may require immediate attention by the Commission.

The AML Source Tool for Mutual Funds, originally developed for use by SEC examiners in the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), provides links to key AML laws, rules and related guidance to help mutual funds maintain their AML compliance programs as required under law.

"Last year, we made our AML Source Tool for Broker-Dealers available to the public, and it has been a popular resource for securities firms and their AML compliance staff," said Lori Richards, Director of the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations. "While we initially developed these resources for our own SEC examiners, they are invaluable reference tools for industry compliance staff as well. This AML Source Tool for Mutual Funds puts all mutual fund AML requirements in one easy-to-reference location, making it easy for mutual funds to understand their AML compliance obligations in their ongoing efforts to prevent money laundering."

OCIE along with the SEC's Division of Enforcement created the SEC SAR Alert Message Line to centralize calls made to the Commission about SAR filings. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the scope of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). As a result, broker-dealers and mutual funds became subject to regulations requiring them to file SARs. As provided in the SAR rules, in situations involving violations that require immediate attention, firms must immediately telephone an appropriate law enforcement authority in addition to filing a SAR. Additionally, firms wishing to voluntarily report suspicious transactions that may relate to terrorist activity can call the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) hotline at 1-866-556-3974.

The SEC SAR Alert Message Line phone number is 202-551-SARS (7277). This number should only be used when securities firms have filed a SAR that may require immediate attention by the Commission. Calling the SEC SAR Alert Message Line does not alleviate a firm's obligation to file a SAR or notify an appropriate law enforcement authority, such as a local office of either the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division or the FBI. General questions on SARs and other BSA filing requirements may be directed to FinCEN's Regulatory Helpline at 1-800-949-2732.

The SEC staff appreciates the assistance received from the staff of FinCEN and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). (Press Rel. 2008-170)


ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

In the Matter of Martin A. Armstrong

On August 6, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Notice of Hearing against Martin A. Armstrong. The Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that on July 22, 2008, a final judgment and order on consent was entered against Armstrong, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Martin A. Armstrong, et al., Civil Action Number 99 Civ. 9667, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Division further alleges in the Order that the Commission's complaint alleged that, Armstrong, together with the entities he controlled, perpetrated a massive fraud by raising millions of dollars by fraudulently offering and selling promissory notes issued by subsidiaries of the entities he controlled to Japanese corporations. In offering and selling those notes, Armstrong represented that the issuers would deposit the proceeds of the note sales into segregated accounts, and use those proceeds to purchase conservative investments, such as securities issued by the United States Treasury. However, Armstrong lost hundreds of millions of dollars through risky currency and commodities trading, commingled investor funds, used investor funds to conceal trading losses, and arranged for the mailing of letter that materially overstated the net asset value of the accounts purportedly underlying investors' notes.

The Division alleges in the Order that on Jan. 7, 2000, the district court issued an order requiring Armstrong to turnover certain enumerated items, including rare coins, gold bullion bars and coins and various antiquities, to the court appointed Receiver. Armstrong failed to comply with the order, and accordingly the district court found him in contempt on January 14, 2000 and ordered him confined to coerce compliance with the turnover order. The turnover order was affirmed by the Second Circuit on Nov. 27, 2006, Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89. Armstrong never complied and on April 27, 2007, the district court determined that the turnover order no longer had coercive effect.

The Division also alleges in the Order that on Aug. 17, 2006, Armstrong pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud and commodities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371 before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in U.S. v. Martin A. Armstrong, 99 CR 00997. On April 10, 2007, Armstrong was sentenced to serve 60 months in federal prison and ordered to pay restitution of $80,000,001. The count of the indictment to which Armstrong pled guilty alleged that Armstrong defrauded investors and obtained money and property by means of materially false and misleading statements, that he used the United States mails to send false account statements, and that he caused commercial interstate carriers to deliver investors' checks to him.

In these proceedings, instituted pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), a hearing will be scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, the judge will hear evidence from the Division and the respondent to determine whether the allegations of the Division contained in the Order are true. The judge in the proceeding will then determine what, if any, remedial action is appropriate in the public interest against Respondent pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Advisers Act. The Commission ordered that the Administrative Law Judge in these proceedings issue an initial decision not later than 210 days from the date of service of the order instituting proceedings. (Rel. IA-2767A; File No. 3-13121)


In the Matter of Finance 500, Inc.

On August 7, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order as to Finance 500, Inc. (Order). The Order finds that, from October 2002 through August 2005, Finance 500, Inc. (Finance 500) willfully violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) by selling a massive number of shares in unregistered offerings under so-called employee stock option programs implemented by thirty-five microcap issuers.

The Order finds that the employee stock option programs, for which Finance 500 administered the brokerage aspects through one of its registered representatives, functioned as public distributions of securities in which the issuers used their employees as conduits to raise millions of dollars in capital without complying with the registration requirements of the federal securities laws. The Order further finds that the issuers improperly registered the shares underlying the options on Form S-8 registration statements and then received at least 85% of the shares' sales proceeds. Form S-8 statements may be used to register shares issued to compensate employees and consultants and have abbreviated disclosure requirements as compared to statements registering shares used to raise capital.

The Order finds that the employee stock option programs, as implemented, had the following characteristics that, taken together, virtually ensured that the options would be exercised, and the underlying shares simultaneously sold, to the public at or near the time the options were granted: (1) the options' exercise price, which was typically set at 85% of the sale proceeds from the options' underlying shares, floated with the market value of an issuer's stock at the time of exercise, (2) the options vested immediately, meaning that the options could be exercised at any time after the date of grant, and (3) a cashless exercise method was used so that the exercise price was remitted to the issuers from the underlying shares' sales proceeds. Additionally, the great majority of employees communicated standing orders to Finance 500 to exercise their options immediately. The Order finds that the near-immediate sale of shares underlying the options resulted in millions and, in some cases, billions of shares in each issuer's stock being sold to the public, severely diluting the ownership interests of existing shareholders. The Order also finds that, by administering the brokerage aspects of the ESIP programs, Finance 500 encountered red flags indicating that the issuers' employees were underwriters to unregistered offerings, which should have prompted Finance 500 to inquire further as to the true nature of the sales.

Based on the above, the Order censures Finance 500, orders it to cease and desist from committing or causing violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and to pay disgorgement of $271,484 and prejudgment interest of $74,015. Finance 500 consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the Commission's findings. (Rels. 33-8950; 34-58325; File No. 3-13122)


In the Matter of Alexander & Wade, Inc. and James Y. Lee

On August 7, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 (Order) against Alexander & Wade, Inc. (AWI) and James Y. Lee.

In the Order, the Division of Enforcement alleges that, from mid-2002 through mid-2005, AWI and Lee caused violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 by introducing several microcap issuers to so-called employee stock option programs that enabled the issuers to raise millions of dollars in capital without providing the disclosures and rights afforded to investors by the registration requirements. The Division alleges that the programs essentially functioned as public offerings in that the issuers used their employees as conduits to offer shares to the public to raise capital. The Division further alleges that, under the advice and guidance of AWI and Lee, the issuers improperly registered the shares underlying their employee stock options on Form S-8 registration statements and then received at least 85% of the sale proceeds from the underlying shares as payment for the options' exercise price. Form S-8 statements may be used to register shares issued to compensate employees and consultants and have abbreviated disclosure requirements as compared to statements registering shares used to raise capital.

The Division alleges that the employee stock option programs, as designed and implemented, had features that, taken together, virtually guaranteed that the options would be exercised, and the underlying shares simultaneously sold, to the public at or near the time the options were granted: (1) the options' exercise price, which was typically set at 85% of the sale proceeds from the options' underlying shares, floated with the market value of an issuer's stock at the time of exercise, (2) the options vested immediately, meaning that no conditions needed to be met before the options could be exercised, and (3) a cashless exercise method was used so that the exercise price was remitted to the issuers from the underlying shares' sales proceeds. Other than opening brokerage accounts and signing blank authorizations, the issuers' employees typically did not make any decisions regarding the options' exercise or the sale of the underlying shares during the course of the employee stock options programs. The near-immediate sale of shares underlying the options, the Division alleges, resulted in millions and, in some cases, billions of shares in each issuer's stock being sold to the public, severely diluting the ownership interests of existing shareholders. The Division finally asserts that, by introducing the issuers to the programs, helping them implement the programs and advising them on the programs' administration, AWI and Lee knew, or should have known, that their conduct was contributing to the issuers' registration violations.

A hearing will be held by an Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the allegations in the Order are true, to provide respondents an opportunity to establish any defenses to the allegations and to determine what, if any, remedial actions are appropriate. The Order requires the Administrative Law Judge to issue an initial decision within 300 days from the date of service of the Order. (Rel. 33-8951; File No. 3-13123)


SEC Settles Civil Injunctive Action Against Former Executive of Massachusetts Public Company

The Commission announced today that a final judgment by consent was entered by the United States District Court of the District of Massachusetts against Howard Richman, the former head of regulatory affairs of Biopure Corporation, in a previously-filed action alleging misleading public statements about the company's efforts to obtain FDA approval for its primary product, Hemopure, a synthetic blood product. The final judgment against Richman, age 56, of Houston, Texas entered on August 6, 2008, permanently enjoins Richman from violating the antifraud and other provisions of the federal securities laws, permanently bars Richman from serving as an officer or director of any public company and orders him to pay a $150,000 civil penalty.

The Commission's Complaint, filed Sept. 14, 2005, alleges that, beginning in April 2003, Biopure received negative information from the FDA regarding its efforts to obtain FDA approval of its synthetic blood product Hemopure but failed to disclose the information, or falsely described it as positive developments. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that in April 2003, the FDA placed a clinical hold barring Biopure from conducting clinical trials of Hemopure in trauma settings such as emergency rooms, because of safety concerns about Hemopure. The Complaint further alleges that, during the next eight months, Richman and other Biopure employees concealed the imposition of the clinical hold while making public statements about Biopure's plans to obtain approval for trauma uses of Hemopure. In addition, according to the Complaint, in July 2003 the FDA informed Biopure that it had not approved Biopure's application for use of Hemopure in orthopedic surgery, and instead conveyed serious concerns about whether the materials Biopure had submitted in support of its application were reliable and questioning the safety of Hemopure. According to the Complaint, Biopure, however, issued public statements beginning on August 1, 2003 describing the FDA's communication as good news, causing its stock price to increase by over 20%. The Complaint alleges that Richman and other Biopure employees continued to make misleading statements until December 2003. During this period, Biopure raised over $35 million from investors. The Complaint further alleges that as the true status of Biopure's efforts to obtain FDA approval gradually became public, through a series of incomplete and misleading disclosures between late October and the end of December 2003, the company's stock price plummeted almost 66% from its August 1 price.

To settle the Commission's charges, Richman consented, without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint, to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining him from committing future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b 5 thereunder and from aiding and abetting future violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder. The final judgment also permanently bars Richman from serving as an officer or director of any public company and imposes a civil penalty in the amount of $150,000.

Biopure and three others previously settled SEC charges concerning the same conduct. For further information, see Litigation Release No. 19825 (September 12, 2006) (SEC Settles Civil Injunctive Action Against Biopure Corporation and Its General Counsel), Litigation Release No. 19651 (April 11, 2006) (SEC Settles with Former Biopure Executive), Litigation Release No. 19376 (September 14, 2005) (Biopure and others charged by the Commission) and Litigation Release No. 20010 (February 21, 2007)(SEC Settles Civil Injunctive Action Against Former CEO of Biopure Corporation). [SEC v. Biopure Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 05-11853-PBS (D. Mass.)] (LR-20672)


SEC Charges Six Microcap Companies, Four Officers and Four Sham Consultants for Improperly Raising Capital by Abusing Form S-8

On August 6, the Commission filed two separate complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against six microcap companies, four officers and four sham consultants for engaging in unregistered public offerings that dumped billions of shares on the market through so-called employee stock option and consulting programs.

In SEC v. Angel Acquisition Corp., et al., the Commission alleges that five companies - NW Tech Capital, Inc. (NW Tech), Marshall Holdings International, Inc. (Marshall Holdings), Angel Acquisition Corp. (AAC), Winsted Holdings, Inc. (Winsted Holdings) and Zann Corp. - violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) when they improperly registered shares issued under their employee stock option programs on Form S-8 registration statements and then received at least 85% of the proceeds from the shares' sales as payment for the options' exercise price. The Commission also alleges that Marshall Holdings' officers, Richard A. Bailey and Florian R. Ternes, and Winsted Holdings' former officer, Mark T. Ellis, violated Section 5 when they implemented and administered their companies' employee stock option programs. Form S-8 statements may be used to register shares issued to compensate employees and consultants and have abbreviated disclosure requirements as compared to statements registering shares used to raise capital. According to the complaints, however, the programs functioned as public offerings in which the companies used their employees as conduits to the market so that they could raise capital without complying with the registration provisions.

The complaints further allege that the companies' programs had features that, taken together, virtually guaranteed that the options would be exercised and the underlying shares simultaneously sold to the public at or near the time the options were granted. First, the options' exercise price, which was typically set at 85% of the sale proceeds from the options' underlying shares, floated with the market value of a company's stock at the time of exercise. Second, the options vested immediately, meaning that no conditions needed to be met before the options could be exercised. Third, a cashless exercise method was used so that the exercise price was paid from the sale proceeds of the underlying shares rather than directly by the employees. Other than opening brokerage accounts and signing blank letters of authorization, the companies' employees made no decisions regarding the options' exercise or the sale of the underlying shares during the course of the programs. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and disgorgement plus prejudgment interest. It also seeks civil penalties against Marshall Holdings, Bailey, Ternes and Ellis.

In SEC v. Global Materials & Services, Inc., et al., the Commission alleges that, Global Materials & Services, Inc. (Global Materials), and its former officer, Stephen J. Owens, violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder when they issued shares registered on Form S-8 to sham consultants, who then kicked back over 60% of the shares' sales proceeds to Owens and Owens' other businesses. The Commission also alleges that William Woo, Eric Ko, ASMAC Financial, Inc. and Edify Capital Group, Inc. aided and abetted Global Materials' fraud and violated the registration provisions in their role as sham consultants. Finally, the Commission asserts that Global Materials violated the registration provisions by implementing an employee stock option program similar to the programs described in the first complaint. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and, with the exception of Global Materials, civil penalties. Additionally, against Owens, it seeks an officer and director bar pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act and a penny stock bar pursuant to Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act. Finally, the Commission names Flinn Springs Inn, Inc. as a relief defendant and seeks to disgorge the money it received under the fraudulent kickback scheme.

NW Tech, AAC, Winsted Holdings, Zann Corp., and Global Materials have agreed to settle the charges, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaints, by consenting to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from future violations of the registration provisions and, with respect to Global Materials, the antifraud provisions and ordering them to pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest with waiver based on inability to pay. The settlements are subject to court approval. [SEC v. Angel Acquisition Corp., et al, Case No. SACV 08-880 JVS (ANx) (C.D. Cal.); SEC v. Global Materials & Services, Inc., et al., Case No. SACV 08-881 DOC (RNBx) (C.D. Cal.)] (LR-20673)


SEC Settles Fraud Charges with Offshore Entity in Scheme that Drove the Stock Price of Cameron International, Inc. from Pennies to $90 Per Share

On August 6, the Honorable Paul A. Crotty, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, entered a Final Judgment as to defendant Socius Holdings, Ltd. (Socius) in SEC v. Peter S. Jessop, et al., permanently enjoining Socius from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Socius consented to the entry of the judgment without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, Socius will pay disgorgement in the amount of $1,237,342, plus prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $123,481, and a civil penalty of $125,000.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from August through November 2005, Socius, an entity incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and operating out of Geneva, Switzerland, in concert with other related individuals and entities, manipulated the stock price of Cameron International, Inc. (Cameron) through a series of coordinated wash sales and matched orders designed to create the illusion of an active and rising market in Cameron and induce others to buy Cameron shares at inflated prices. The complaint further alleges that during this period, the defendants' trading comprised the majority, and on some days all, of the retail buying and selling of Cameron's stock. Moreover, the complaint alleges that the defendants' coordinated trades drove Cameron's share price from less than $1 per share to $90 per share in approximately a two month period.

On Nov. 7, 2005, the Commission suspended trading in shares of Cameron due to a lack of current and accurate information concerning a possible change in ownership of the company and questions regarding the dramatic rise in its share price. On Dec. 1, 2005, the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a temporary restraining order freezing a U.S. brokerage account titled in the name of Socius that held the proceeds from Socius' trading of Cameron stock. Pursuant to an order entered by the Court on Aug. 6, 2008, the Final Judgment will be satisfied with the funds from the frozen Socius account.

For more information, see Release No. 34-52743 (Nov. 7, 2005); Litigation Release No. 19481 (Dec. 2, 2005). [SEC v. Peter S. Jessop, et al., Civil Action No. 05-CV-10115 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.,)] (LR-20674)


SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATIONS

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes

The National Securities Clearing Corporation filed a proposed rule change (SR-NSCC-2008-06), which became effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act, that enhances the NSCC Equity Options Service by extending similar processing to bond options transactions. The enhanced service will be called the "NSCC Equity Options and Bond Options Service." Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of August 11. (Rel. 34-58300)

A proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2008-063) filed by the NASDAQ Stock Market to modify the rules governing the requirements for market maker quotations on the NASDAQ Options Market has become immediately effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of August 11. (Rel. 34-58305)

A proposed rule change filed by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (SR-CBOE-2008-79) related to the Automated Improvement Mechanism has become effective under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of August 11. (Rel. 34-58307)

A proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2008-81) filed by the Chicago Board Options Exchange relating to Temporary Membership Status and Interim Trading Permit access fees has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of August 11. (Rel. 34-58315)


Proposed Rule Changes

A proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2008-027) has been filed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority regarding a proposal to adopt FINRA Rule 3220 (Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others) and FINRA Rule 2070 (Transactions Involving FINRA Employees) in the consolidated FINRA rulebook. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of August 11. (Rel. 34-58308)

The National Securities Clearing Corporation filed a proposed rule change (SR-NSCC-2008-07) under Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act to enhance processing of exchange-traded funds. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of August 11. (Rel. 34-58314)


Approval of Proposed Rule Change

The Commission published notice of filing of Amendment No. 1 and granted accelerated approval of a proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-63), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, submitted by NYSE Arca pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to list and trade shares of the MacroShares Medical Inflation Trusts. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of August 11. (Rel. 34-58312)


SECURITIES ACT REGISTRATIONS


RECENT 8K FILINGS

 

http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2008/dig080708.htm


Modified: 08/07/2008