SEC News Digest

COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS

SEC Votes to Propose Rules Enhancing Municipal Securities Disclosure

The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted unanimously to propose rule amendments to improve the quality and timeliness of municipal securities disclosure.

The proposed amendments to SEC Rule 15c2-12 would help investors make more knowledgeable investment decisions, effectively manage and monitor their investments, and avoid fraud. The proposed amendments would also assist broker-dealers in carrying out their responsibilities under the securities laws.

"Currently there is a disparity between the level of information available to investors in municipal securities versus information available to investors in corporate securities," said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. "These proposals would help investors make more knowledgeable investment decisions about municipal securities, while at the same time enabling broker-dealers to satisfy their obligations with respect to municipal securities."

Every year, states and local governments raise funds for schools, roads, hospitals and other needs by issuing municipal bonds. In turn, investors receive principal and interest payments, which are often exempt from federal and state income taxes. Maintaining the health of this key component of our capital markets is important to every resident of the United States in addition to the millions of investors in municipal bonds.

Because municipal securities, such as municipal bonds, are exempt from the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws, the SEC adopted Rule 15c2-12 in 1989, which was designed to foster greater transparency in the municipal securities market.

Rule 15c2-12 prohibits brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers from purchasing or selling municipal securities unless they reasonably believe that the state or local government issuing the securities has agreed to disclose such things as annual financial statements and notices of certain events, such as payment defaults, rating changes and prepayments.

The Commission voted to propose amendments that would:

Expand the Rule to Cover Additional Municipal Securities

When it was first adopted, the Rule specifically did not apply to certain securities commonly known as variable rate demand obligations or VRDOs. Under the proposed amendment, the Rule would apply to such securities. VRDOs bear interest at a rate that is reset periodically and investors are able to sell them back to the issuer at certain times for their full value.

Improve Disclosure of Tax Risk

The proposed amendment would specifically require disclosure of events that may adversely affect a bond's tax exemption, including issuance by the IRS of proposed and final decisions about whether the bond can be taxed.

Strengthen and Expand Disclosure of Important Events

Under the existing Rule, an underwriter must have a reasonable belief that the state or local government that issued municipal bonds has agreed to provide ongoing, continuing disclosure of certain important events.

The Rule presently provides that notice of all of the listed events need be made only “if material.” The proposal would eliminate the need for a materiality determination and simply require that the following events be disclosed in a notice: (1) failure to pay principal and interest; (2) unscheduled payments out of debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (3) unscheduled payments by parties backing the bonds, reflecting financial difficulties, or a change in the identity of parties backing the bonds or their failure to perform; (4) defeasances, including situations where the issuer has provided for future payment of all obligations under a bond; and (5) rating changes. A materiality determination would be retained for some events, including, for example, bond calls.

The proposed amendment would also increase the number of events to include (1) tender offers; (2) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar proceeding; (3) mergers, consolidations, acquisitions, the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the obligated person or their termination; and (4) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of the name of a trustee, if material.

Establish a More Specific Filing Deadline

The proposed amendment would require that notices of the events listed in the rule be disclosed no more than ten business days after the event.

Currently, the Rule simply provides for disclosure "in a timely manner."

Proposed Additional Guidance

Over the years, the Commission has set forth interpretations under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws to require municipal securities underwriters to have a reasonable basis for recommending any municipal securities. And, in fulfilling that obligation, it is their responsibility to review the disclosure documents in a professional manner with respect to the accuracy and completeness of statements made in connection with the offering. The proposing release reaffirms the Commission's previous interpretations and provides additional guidance with respect to underwriters' responsibilities under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

(Press Rel. 2009-161)

ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

In the Matter of Donald F. McCracken

On July 15, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 15(b) and 17A(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Donald F. McCracken. The Order finds that a final judgment was entered by consent against McCracken on June 29, 2009, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Karnig H. Durgarian, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 05-12618-NMG, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Based on the above, the Order bars McCracken from association with any broker, dealer, or transfer agent, with the right to reapply for association after one year. McCracken consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying the findings in the Order, except he admitted the entry of the injunction. (Rel. 34-60308; File No. 3-13547)

SEC Institutes Administrative Proceeding Against Frederick J. Barton Based Upon the Entry of a Permanent Injunction and a Criminal Conviction

On July 15, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Notice of Hearing (Order) against Frederick J. Barton. In the Order the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that, on April 27, 2009, a default judgment was entered against Barton 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 Rules10b-5 and 10b-9 thereunder, and from future violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Frederick J. Barton, et al., Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-1917-RWS, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Division sets forth the Commission's allegations in its complaint in that proceeding, including between May 1999 and December 2003, Barton, acting individually or through Barton Asset Management, LLC (Barton Asset Management), fraudulently misappropriated almost the entire life savings of R.F., a single elderly customer of the broker-dealer employing Barton, who suffered from diminished mental capacity and Alzheimer's disease. Barton individually and through Barton Asset Management misappropriated $970,000 in this scheme.

The Complaint further alleged that later, between October 2004 and October 2005, Barton and TwinSpan Capital Management, LLC (TwinSpan) engaged in a fraudulent private placement, ostensibly to raise funds to finance TwinSpan. Barton and TwinSpan raised $1.515 million from ten investors, falsely representing to all of them in the private placement memorandum that the funds would only be used upon reaching a minimum offering amount and then, would only be used for TwinSpan's general corporate purposes. Despite those representations, Barton and TwinSpan diverted funds from the offering for Barton's personal use, and without disclosure to investors used a substantial portion of the offering proceeds in advance of reaching the minimum offering amount in violation of the terms of the private placement.

Finally, the Complaint alleged that between October 2006 and January 2007, Barton and TwinSpan misappropriated $685,000 from an investment advisory client of TwinSpan, J.C. First, acting through TwinSpan, Barton forged J.C.'s signature on four wire-transfer authorizations and used them to transfer $185,000 of J.C.'s assets under TwinSpan's management into a bank account in the name of Barton Asset Management. Shortly thereafter, Barton borrowed an additional $500,000 from J.C., ostensibly to fund TwinSpan's business plan, without disclosing to her that he had previously misappropriated $185,000 of her funds.

The Order also states that on March 25, 2009, Barton pled guilty to one count of wire fraud in violation of Title 18 United States Code Section 1343, before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in United States v. Frederick Barton, Case No. 1:08-CR-477-TWT, and that in May 2007, in connection with a portion of the misconduct outlined above, the Georgia Secretary of State (i) ordered Barton to cease-and-desist all offers for sale and sales of securities in violation of the Georgia Securities Act of 1973, as amended, and (ii) permanently barred Barton from associating with a registered dealer, limited dealer, or investment adviser in Georgia.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are true, to provide Barton an opportunity to respond to these allegations, and to determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate and in the public interest. As directed by the Commission, an administrative law judge shall issue an initial decision in this matter no later than 210 days from the date of service of the Order Instituting Proceedings. (Rels. 34-60309; IA-2900; File No. 3-13548)

SEC Obtains Default Judgment, Disgorgement and Imposition of Third Tier Penalties Against Butko for Online Intrusion Scheme

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on July 6, 2009, the United States District Court of Connecticut entered a Default Judgment against Dmitriy Butko ordering him to pay disgorgement in the amount of $60,362 together with prejudgment interest of $10,494.92 and imposing a civil penalty of $520,000.

The Commission began this action by filing a complaint against Butko on Aug. 7, 2008. The complaint alleged that Butko engaged in a modern, high-tech version of the traditional pump-and-dump market manipulation scheme. Specifically, the Defendant was trading in the common stock of issuers on the National Association of Securities Dealers Quotation System (Nasdaq) whose shares were being manipulated through unauthorized intrusions and trading in online brokerage accounts of unsuspecting at U.S. broker-dealers in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC's Office of Investor Education and Assistance has previously issued an investor alert, available on the SEC's website, which provides tips for avoiding becoming a victim of an online intrusion. See http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/onlinebrokerage.htm. [SEC v. Dmitriy Butko, Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-01201 (D. Conn.)] (LR-21130)

Marshall Holdings International, Inc. and Mark T. Ellis Settle SEC Charges

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on July 6, 2009, the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered Final Judgments by consent against defendants Marshall Holdings International, Inc. (Marshall Holdings) and Mark T. Ellis, a resident of Irvine, California.

In the complaint filed on Aug. 6, 2008, the Commission alleged that Marshall Holdings and Ellis, an officer of Winsted Holdings, Inc. (Winsted Holdings), improperly registered shares issued under employee stock option programs on Form S-8 registration statements from 2003 through 2005. Marshall Holdings and Winsted Holdings then received at least 85% of the proceeds from the shares' sales as payment of 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. According to the complaint, however, the option programs functioned as public offerings through which Marshall Holdings and Winsted Holdings used their employees as conduits to the market so that they could raise capital without complying with the registration provisions.

Without admitting or denying the complaint's allegations, Marshall Holdings and Ellis have consented to the entry of Final Judgments enjoining them from violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, ordering them to pay disgorgement of $8,974,033 and $1,042,000, respectively, plus prejudgment interest and, based upon their financial conditions, waiving payment of all such amounts. The litigation continues as to two remaining defendants.

For more information on earlier actions in this case, see Litigation Release Number 20673 (Aug. 7, 2008). [SEC v. Angel Acquisition Corp., et al, Case No. SACV 08-880 JVS (ANx) (C.D. Cal.)] (LR-21131)

SEC'S Miami Regional Office Charges Six Defendants With Insider Trading in Neff Corporation

On July 15, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida charging six individuals with insider trading in the securities of Neff Corporation before an April 7, 2005, announcement of its acquisition.

In its complaint, the Commission alleges that Kevan Acord, an attorney and accountant, and his partner, Philip Growney, an accountant, abused their position of trust and confidence as tax consultants to Neff when they bought $329,000 of Neff stock in the nine days before the announcement. According to the complaint, they bought the shares after learning during their work for Neff that another company might acquire it. Following the acquisition, Acord exchanged shares that he purchased for his personal account and for the account of a long time client for a profit of nearly $155,000.

The complaint also alleges that Alberto Perez, a business associate and close friend of Neff's CEO, learned of the possible acquisition while working at an office at Neff's headquarters two doors down from the acquisition due diligence teams. Perez abused his position of trust and confidence with the CEO, and misappropriated the information by tipping his brother Jose Perez. The complaint alleges that the two then used the information to purchase $282,000 of Neff stock for a brokerage account they jointly owned, in advance of the acquisition announcement. Following the acquisition, the Perezes exchanged their Neff shares for a profit of $399,000.

The complaint further alleges that Dr. Sebastian De La Maza, the father-in-law of Neff's CEO, learned about the pending acquisition from his daughter, who is married to Neff's CEO. According to the complaint, during the weeks preceding the acquisition announcement, De La Maza abused his position of trust and confidence with his daughter and misappropriated this information to buy $111,000 of Neff stock. Following the acquisition, De La Maza exchanged the Neff shares for a profit of $84,000.

Finally, the Commission's complaint alleges that Thomas Borell, a Miami lawyer and a close friend of a Neff director misappropriated information about the acquisition. He abused the position of trust and confidence with the director and bought more than $1.3 million of Neff stock during the six weeks before the announcement - much of it while he was on a family vacation with the director. According to the complaint, he used a client trust fund account to fund some of the purchases. Following the acquisition, Borell sold his Neff stock for a profit of nearly $975,000.

The complaint charges each of the defendants with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties and an officer and director bar against Acord.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) with this investigation. [SEC v. Kevan D. Acord et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of South Florida, Case No. 09-21977-CIV-JORDAN/McAliley] (LR-21132)

SEC Charges Five Individuals With Insider Trading in Connection With Safeco Corp.'s Merger Announcement

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today the filing of three separate civil injunctive actions charging five individuals with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on their tipping, or trading on, material, non-public information. Specifically, the Commission's complaints allege that the defendants either tipped or purchased securities of Safeco Corp. (Safeco) in advance of the April 23, 2008 announcement that it was being acquired by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for an all-cash price of $68.50 per share (a $23.02 premium over the prior day's closing price).

In the first civil action, in the United States District Court for the Western District Washington, the Commission alleges that Math J. Hipp Jr., of Seattle, Washington, misappropriated material, non-public information about a potential sale of Safeco from his wife, an executive assistant to Safeco's Executive Vice President of Insurance Operations. Hipp's wife was working on projects related to the potential sale of Safeco and received material, non-public information about merger-related developments. Hipp bought Safeco call options on April 17, 2008, and sold them on April 23, 2008 through early May 2008, for a realized profit of over $118,245. Hipp has consented to entry of a proposed final judgment, without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint, permanently enjoining him from further violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $118,245 and pre-judgment of $3,280, and a civil penalty of $118,245.

In the second civil action, the Commission alleges that Anthony Perez, of Maitland, Florida, then an investment banker at Goldman Sachs & Co. (Goldman Sachs), misappropriated material non-public information from Goldman Sachs and its client regarding a potential acquisition of Safeco, and unlawfully tipped his brother, Ian C. Perez. Ian C. Perez bought Safeco call options on April 22, 2008, and sold them on April 23, 2008, for a realized profit of over $152,000. Both defendants have consented to entry of proposed final judgments, without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint, permanently enjoining them from further violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and holding them jointly and severally liable for payment of disgorgement of $152,231 and prejudgment interest in the amount of $761. The proposed final judgment against Ian C. Perez does not order him to pay a civil penalty based upon his sworn Statement of Financial Condition; the proposed final judgment against Anthony Perez orders him to pay a penalty in the amount of $25,000, but does not impose a higher penalty based upon his sworn Statement of Financial Condition.

In a third action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the Commission alleges Peter E. Talbot, of Springfield, Massachusetts, then a financial analyst at a subsidiary of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (the Hartford) tipped his nephew, Carl E. Binette, of Ludlow, Massachusetts, after he learned at work that Safeco was an acquisition target. The Commission's complaint alleges that Talbot learned this information because he was snooping in a co-worker's folder on the shared computer network which contained Safeco's Form 10-K and detailed analyses and evaluations of Safeco's assets. When Talbot subsequently noticed that key employees were working long hours and in unusual pairings, Talbot told Binette to buy Safeco call options because Safeco was an acquisition target. Using Binette's brokerage account, Talbot and Binette bought Safeco call options from April 17, 2008 to April 22, 2008 and sold them on April 23, 2008, for a realized profit of $615,833. The Commission seeks a final judgment enjoining Talbot and Binette from further violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and ordering Talbot and Binette to disgorge their illegal trading profits, with prejudgment interest, and imposing civil penalties against each of them.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Chicago Board Options Exchange and New York Stock Exchange for their cooperation in this matter. [SEC v. Anthony Perez and Ian C. Perez., Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-1225-ORL-19 DAB (M.D. Fla.); SEC v. Math J. Hipp Jr., Civil Action No. C09-0987-MAT (W.D. Wa.); SEC v. Carl E. Binette and Peter E. Talbot, 09:CV-30107-MAP (D. Mass.)] (LR-21133)

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT RELEASES

Reaves Utility Income Fund, et al.

A notice has been issued giving interested persons until Aug. 10, 2009, to request a hearing on an application filed by Reaves Utility Income Fund, et al., for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act for an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act. The order would permit a registered closed-end investment company to make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to its outstanding common shares as frequently as twelve times each year, and as frequently as distributions are specified by or in accordance with the terms of its preferred shares. (Rel. IC-28818 - July 14)

SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATIONS

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Changes

A proposed rule change filed by NASDAQ OMX BX (SR-BX-2009-037) to make permanent the Quarterly Options Series Program on the Boston Options Exchange facility 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 July13. (Rel. 34-60270)

A proposed rule change filed by the International Securities Exchange (SR-ISE-2009-50) to establish permanently the Exchange's Quarterly Option Series Pilot Program has become immediately 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60275)

A proposed rule change filed by the International Securities Exchange (SR-ISE-2009-49) to extend the Short Term Options Series Pilot Program until July 12, 2010, has become immediately 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60281)

A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Arca (SR-NYSEArca-2009-66) amending its option trading rules in order to adopt the Quarterly Option Series Program on a permanent basis 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60282)

A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Amex (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-41) to establish permanently the Exchange's Quarterly Option Series Pilot Program has become immediately 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60283)

A proposed rule change filed by Chicago Stock Exchange relating to the declaration of Trading Halts on the Exchange (SR-CHX-2009-05) 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60284)

A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Arca (SR-NYSEArca-2009-67) to extend the Short Term Options Series Pilot Program until July 12, 2010 has become immediately 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60285)

A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Amex (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-43) to extend the Short Term Options Series Pilot Program until July 12, 2010 has become immediately 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60286)

A proposed rule change filed by the New York Stock Exchange (SR-NYSE-2009-69) amending NYSE Rule 72 to eliminate parity allocations for DMM interest added intra-day during a slow quote or when verbally trading with Floor brokers at the point of sale 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60287)

A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Amex (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-40) amending NYSE Amex Equities Rule 72 to eliminate parity allocations for DMM interest added intra-day during a slow quote or when verbally trading with Floor brokers at the point of sale 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60288)

A proposed rule change filed by New York Stock Exchange (SR-NYSE-2009-68) amending NYSE Rules 60, 70 and 1000 to reflect modifications to the manner in which the Exchange will quote and trade with respect to Liquidity Replenishment Points 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60289)

A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Amex (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-39) amending NYSE Amex Equities Rules 60, 70 and 1000 to reflect modifications to the manner in which the Exchange will quote and trade with respect to Liquidity Replenishment Points 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60290)

A proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-049) filed by the Chicago Board Options Exchange related to market maker guidelines 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60295)

A proposed rule change filed by NYSE Amex (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-37) amending Rule 968NY-Cabinet Trades 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60296)

A proposed rule change filed by the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (SR-FICC-2008-07) to amend certain FICC fees has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of July 13. (Rel. 34-60298)

A proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2009-66) filed by the New York Stock Exchange to lower its market capitalization continued listing standard 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 July 13. (Rel. 34-60305)

Proposed Rule Changes

The Commission noticed a proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2009-039) and Amendment No. 1 thereto submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to extend the delta hedging exemption from equity options position limits to customers. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of July 13. (Rel. 34-60271)

NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule change (SR-NYSE Amex-2009-42) under Rule 19b-4 of the Exchange Act relating to new rules governing Electronic Complex Order trading. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of July 6. (Rel. 34-60297)

The Depository Trust Company filed a proposed rule change (SR-DTC-2009-11) under Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Act that would eliminate one of the indemnity surety programs in the Profile Modification System. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of July 13. (Rel. 34-60304)

Approval of Proposed Rule Change

The Commission issued an order approving a proposed rule change submitted by The NASDAQ Stock Market (SR-NASDAQ-2009-042) pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to amend its limited liability agreement. Publication is expected in the Federal Register during the week of July 13. (Rel. 34-60276)

SECURITIES ACT REGISTRATIONS

• Latest Securities Act registrations (TXT)

RECENT 8K FILINGS

• Latest 8-K filings (TXT)

http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2009/dig071509.htm