From: Ronald F. Grossman
Sent: February 13, 2007
To: rule-comments@sec.gov
Subject: File No. SR-CBOE-2006-106

Gentlemen:
It seems to me that government should not condone a party to an agreement being able to unilaterally terminate the other party's vested interest in property.

If the CBOE were not to have been a success after the Chicago Board of Trade created it and assumed all the risks, financial and otherwise, would the members of the CBOE have compensated the Board of Trade members? I think not. But now that there may be pay back to Board of Trade members for their efforts and risk taking, the CBOE wishes to deny its obligation. I don't know what law would provide the justification for such a result, but it would certainly lack any equity in its application.

The fact that the Board of trade members will no longer have stock in the BOT holding company, but will have (1)the equivalent in stock of another holding company (CME holding) is a distinction without a differerence. There will, after the merger,(2) continue to be a Board of Trade division of CME holding, and(3) there will continue to exist the "exercise" right, and thus, there will be members of the BOT that will have all the required components that earlier agreements between the two exchanges require.

It is respectfully urged that the above mentioned proposed Rule change not be approved.

Ronald F. Grossman