October 15, 2021
The proposed rule states that it would \"permit the Chair of the Board of the Exchange, or the CEO, or the officer designee of the Chair or the CEO, to suspend trading in any and all securities trading on the Exchange whenever in his or her opinion such suspension would be in the public interest.\"
The term \"public interest\" is too vague and ambiguous. There needs to be definitive guidelines that constitute what would constitute public interest. This rule would allow suspended traded based on OPINION. As long as this CEO can \"prove\" that they felt it was public interest to do so, they would be able to avoid any penalties, despite whether or not it was actually in the public's best interest. Maybe the CEO feels like the public's best interest is him/her not losing $1bln. Maybe the CEO feels like the public's best interest was the he can buy another mansion and mega yacht.
Point is, the term \"public interest\" is too vague here and MUST be defined before this amendment is accepted. You do not want to let someone abuse the rule BEFORE you define this term. They can make billions and then you fine him/her a few million dollars for abusing the rule? That in itself is not in the public's best interest.
I understand that sometimes the uneducated public needs to be protect from themselves, but it is the SEC's duty to prevent any possibility of abuse and fraud.