July 28, 2021
I'm interested in ensuring that the language of the proposed Rule does not go beyond its intended purpose.
If the stated purpose of the Systems Disconnect Rule is to protect DTCC Systems, then the Systems Disconnect Rule should be limited to just technical systems issues which may affect the DTCC Systems.
The references to \"reasonably likely\" and \"significant impact\" in the definition of \"Major Event\" are unclear and unnecessary. \"Reasonably\" should be deleted and \"significant\" replaced by \"material\" to be consistent with the Force Majeure Rule.
\"Major Event\" should only be limited to events which affect DTCC Systems, therefore this phrase \"the Corporation's operations, including the DTCC Systems,\" should be replaced by \"the DTCC Systems\" only (i.e. to delete \"the Corporation's operations, including\")
It would also be helpful to state categorically at the end of the \"Major Event\" definition that \"For the avoidance of doubt, a 'Major Event' does not include any events which occur only due to the operation of normal market forces.\"
The reference to \"reasonable basis\" at sec 2 of the Systems Disconnect Rule is unclear and unnecessary, and the word \"reasonable\" should be deleted.
It would be appropriate to include the \"reasonable\" criteria at sec 3(c) of the Systems Disconnect Rule rather than the other parts of the Rule. Proposed amendment to this phrase at line 2 of sec 3(c): \"any and all reasonable action\".
For sec 5 of the Systems Disconnect Rule, DTCC should also include an exception to the exclusion of liability in the event of negligence or fraud. This is a standard exception of exclusion of liability clauses.
If DTCC adopts the above comments, I believe it would achieve the stated purpose of the Systems Disconnect Rule without the potential of using it beyond its stated purpose.