82 FR 44238 - Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the Options Clearing Corporation; Corrected Order Denying Motion for Stay
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 182 (September 21, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 182 (September 21, 2017)
| Page Range | 44238-44239 | |
| FR Document | 2017-20080 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 44238-44239] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-20080] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. SR-OCC-2015-02; Release No. 81628] Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the Options Clearing Corporation; Corrected Order Denying Motion for Stay September 14, 2017. On February 11, 2016, the Commission issued an order (``Approval Order'') approving the Options Clearing Corporation's (``OCC'') plan for raising additional capital (``Capital Plan'' or ``Plan'') to support its function as a systemically important financial market utility.\1\ BOX Options Exchange LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc. (``KCG''), Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and Susquehanna International Group, LLP (collectively ``petitioners'') \2\ filed a petition for review of the Approval Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit''), challenging the Commission's Approval Order as inconsistent with the Exchange Act and lacking in the reasoned decisionmaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Exchange Act Release No. 77112 (Feb. 11, 2016), File No. SR- OCC-2015-02. \2\ BATS Global Markets, Inc. (``BATS'') was initially a petitioner, but later withdrew. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After filing their petition for review, petitioners filed a motion for a stay in the D.C. Circuit asking the court to stay the Commission's Approval Order pending the court's review. The D.C. Circuit denied petitioners' request for a stay.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The petitioners had also opposed OCC's motion to lift the automatic stay in place pending the Commission's review of the Capital Plan. The Commission found, however, that it was ``in the public interest to the lift the stay during the pendency of the Commission's review.'' Exchange Act Release No. 75886 at 2 (Sept. 10, 2015), File No. SR-OCC-2015-02. The Commission noted that it ``believes that the concerns raised by Petitioners regarding potential monetary and competitive harm do not currently justify maintaining the stay during the pendency of the Commission's review.'' Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In ruling on the petition for review, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Approval Order did not ``represent the kind of reasoned decisionmaking required by either the Exchange Act or the Administrative Procedure Act,'' and therefore remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings.\4\ In so ruling, the court did not reach any of petitioners' arguments that the Plan was inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the Exchange Act, finding instead that the Commission's failure to make the required findings under the Act required a remand.\5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442, 443 (D.C. Cir. 2017). \5\ Id. at 446. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The court also considered whether to vacate the Approval Order prior to remand, and decided not to vacate. As the court explained, ``the SEC may be able to approve the Plan once again, after conducting a proper analysis on remand.'' \6\ Because both parties had assured the court that it would be possible to unwind the Capital Plan at a later time, and ``no party contends that the task would be materially more difficult if done then rather than now,'' the court declined to vacate the Capital Plan and instead remanded the case ``to give the SEC an opportunity to properly evaluate the Plan.'' \7\ The D.C. Circuit's mandate, which issued on August 18, 2017, returned the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Id. at 451. \7\ Id. \8\ By separate order of today's date, we are issuing a scheduling order governing the proceedings on remand. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioners \9\ now seek a partial stay of the Capital Plan-- specifically, a stay of the dividend payments to be made to the shareholder exchanges under the Plan--while the Commission considers the Plan as directed by the D.C. Circuit. OCC opposes the motion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Petitioner KCG has not joined the instant motion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In determining whether to grant a stay motion, the Commission typically considers whether (i) there is a strong likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits of its appeal; (ii) the moving party will suffer irreparable harm without a stay; (iii) any person will suffer substantial harm as a result of a stay; and (iv) a stay is likely to serve [[Page 44239]] the public interest.\10\ The party seeking a stay has the burden of establishing that relief is warranted.\11\ These factors weigh against granting petitioners' stay request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Bernerd E. Young, Exchange Act Release No. 78440, 2016 WL 4060106, at *1 (July 29, 2016); see also Order Preliminarily Considering Whether to Issue Stay Sua Sponte and Establishing Guidelines for Seeking Stay Applications, Exchange Act Release No. 33870, 1994 WL 17920, at *1 (Apr. 7, 1994). \11\ Young, Exchange Act Release No. 78440, 2016 WL 4060106, at *1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, with respect to likelihood of success on the merits, we note that the court did not address petitioners' arguments that the Plan was inconsistent with the Exchange Act. Rather, it remanded for the Commission to ``properly evaluate the Plan.'' \12\ By repeating their same arguments regarding consistency with the Act in support of a stay, petitioners are asking the Commission to opine on their likelihood of success before engaging in the further analysis directed by the court. We are not yet in a position to do so. Unlike the more typical situation in which the Commission addresses stay motions, here there is neither a full record nor a final decision on which to base such an analysis. Thus, we do not view this factor as weighing in favor of the partial stay request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ 866 F.3d at 451. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, petitioners fail to establish that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay. To demonstrate irreparable harm, petitioners ``must show an injury that is `both certain and great' and `actual and not theoretical.' '' \13\ ``A stay `will not be granted [based on] something merely feared as liable to occur at some indefinite time.' '' \14\ That ``an applicant may suffer financial detriment does not rise to the level of irreparable injury warranting issuance of a stay.'' \15\ Petitioners acknowledge that the monetary aspects of the Plan ``are readily reversible'' \16\ and that the court concluded that ``the task of unwinding the Plan would be no more difficult if done after remand rather than immediately.'' \17\ They nonetheless argue that ``[a] stay of the dividend is needed to prevent distortion of the competitive landscape from continuing to harm competition.'' \18\ But petitioners provide no evidence that competitors will be ``driven from the marketplace'' or that investors have ``lost liquidity,'' as petitioners claim.\19\ Thus, petitioners' argument--which presumes they are correct on the merits regarding the Plan's effect on competition--is too speculative at this stage to be the basis for relief. We also note that petitioners made these same arguments regarding competitive harm before the D.C. Circuit, yet the court did not stay or vacate the Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Kenny A. Akindemowo, Exchange Act Release No. 78352, 2016 WL 3877888, at *2 (July 18, 2016) (quoting Donald L. Koch, Exchange Act Release No. 72443, 2014 WL 2800778, at *2 (June 20, 2014)); accord Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). \14\ Akindemowo, 2016 WL 3877888, at *2 (quoting Koch, 2014 WL 2800778, at *2); accord Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674. \15\ Robert J. Prager, Exchange Act Release No. 50634, 2004 WL 2480717, at *1 (Nov. 4, 2004); see also William Timpinaro, Exchange Act Release No. 29927, 1991 WL 288326, at *3 (Nov. 12, 1991) (recognizing that ``[m]ere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time, and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough'' to constitute irreparable harm) (quoting Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958)). \16\ Mot. at 1. \17\ Mot. at 16. \18\ Id. \19\ Id. Petitioners cite the acquisition of BATS by CBOE Holdings, Inc.--which, we note, closed on February 28, 2017--in support of their argument, stating that there has been consolidation in the exchange marketplace while the Capital Plan has been in effect. But they supply no evidence of a causal relationship between that acquisition and the Capital Plan or the dividends at issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, petitioners have not demonstrated that the balance of harm to others in the absence of a stay and the public interest favors a stay. Petitioners argue that ``a stay would injur[e] nobody,'' \20\ because they are asking only to stay the dividend component of the Plan. But even setting aside the impact on shareholder exchanges that are due the dividends under the Plan, petitioners' claim that the dividend component of the plan can be isolated is overly simplistic. Under the Plan, ``OCC would not be able to pay a refund on a particular date unless dividends were paid on the same date.'' \21\ A stay of the dividends to the shareholders would thus have the effect of also staying the payment of refunds to OCC's members. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ Mot. at 16. \21\ Exchange Act Release No. 74136 (Notice of Proposed Rule Change) at 15, File No. SR-OCC-2015-02. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moreover, as discussed above, the court squarely considered whether to vacate the Plan or leave it in effect during the Commission's reconsideration, and decided to leave the Plan, including the provisions with respect to dividends, in place. Petitioners' request to stay that part of the Plan therefore, in fact, seeks a change in the status quo that we believe is unsupported at this time. Granting petitioners' request would require piecemeal suspension of portions of the Plan, while leaving others in place, despite at least the possibility of having to reinstitute those provisions at a later date if the Commission, after conducting the required analysis on remand, should determine to approve the Plan. Indeed, the court implicitly rejected this type of partial stay when petitioners proposed it in a pre-decision letter to the court \22\ and the court remanded without entering such a stay. We believe, as the court did, that the better course is to leave the status quo in place while we conduct a further review of the entirety of the Plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter from petitioners, dated April 17, 2017 (asking the court ``at a minimum, to stay operation of the dividend component of the Plan during a remand''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, we decline to impose the partial stay requested. For the reasons stated above, it is hereby: Ordered that movants' request for a partial stay of the Capital Plan while the Commission considers the Plan pursuant to the direction of the D.C. Circuit is Denied. By the Commission. Brent J. Fields, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017-20080 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
![44238 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices
proposed rule change operative upon 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the In ruling on the petition for review,
filing.22 filing also will be available for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the
At any time within 60 days of the inspection and copying at the principal Approval Order did not ‘‘represent the
filing of the proposed rule change, the office of the Exchange. All comments kind of reasoned decisionmaking
Commission summarily may received will be posted without change; required by either the Exchange Act or
temporarily suspend such rule change if the Commission does not edit personal the Administrative Procedure Act,’’ and
it appears to the Commission that such identifying information from therefore remanded the case to the
action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in submissions. You should submit only Commission for further proceedings.4 In
the public interest; (ii) for the protection information that you wish to make so ruling, the court did not reach any of
of investors; or (iii) otherwise in available publicly. All submissions petitioners’ arguments that the Plan was
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. should refer to File Number SR–GEMX– inconsistent with the substantive
If the Commission takes such action, the 2017–42 and should be submitted on or requirements of the Exchange Act,
Commission shall institute proceedings before October 12, 2017. finding instead that the Commission’s
to determine whether the proposed rule For the Commission, by the Division of failure to make the required findings
should be approved or disapproved. Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated under the Act required a remand.5
IV. Solicitation of Comments authority.23 The court also considered whether to
Eduardo A. Aleman, vacate the Approval Order prior to
Interested persons are invited to Assistant Secretary. remand, and decided not to vacate. As
submit written data, views, and the court explained, ‘‘the SEC may be
[FR Doc. 2017–20088 Filed 9–20–17; 8:45 am]
arguments concerning the foregoing, able to approve the Plan once again,
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
including whether the proposed rule after conducting a proper analysis on
change is consistent with the Act. remand.’’ 6 Because both parties had
Comments may be submitted by any of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE assured the court that it would be
the following methods: COMMISSION possible to unwind the Capital Plan at
Electronic Comments a later time, and ‘‘no party contends that
[File No. SR–OCC–2015–02; Release No. the task would be materially more
• Use the Commission’s Internet 81628] difficult if done then rather than now,’’
comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ the court declined to vacate the Capital
rules/sro.shtml); or Before the Securities and Exchange
Commission; Securities Exchange Act Plan and instead remanded the case ‘‘to
• Send an email to rule-comments@ give the SEC an opportunity to properly
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– of 1934; In the Matter of the Options
Clearing Corporation; Corrected Order evaluate the Plan.’’ 7 The D.C. Circuit’s
GEMX–2017–42 on the subject line. mandate, which issued on August 18,
Denying Motion for Stay
Paper Comments 2017, returned the matter to the
September 14, 2017. Commission for further proceedings.8
• Send paper comments in triplicate
On February 11, 2016, the Petitioners 9 now seek a partial stay of
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission issued an order (‘‘Approval the Capital Plan—specifically, a stay of
Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Order’’) approving the Options Clearing the dividend payments to be made to
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Corporation’s (‘‘OCC’’) plan for raising the shareholder exchanges under the
All submissions should refer to File additional capital (‘‘Capital Plan’’ or Plan—while the Commission considers
Number SR–GEMX–2017–42. This file ‘‘Plan’’) to support its function as a the Plan as directed by the D.C. Circuit.
number should be included on the systemically important financial market OCC opposes the motion.
subject line if email is used. To help the utility.1 BOX Options Exchange LLC, In determining whether to grant a stay
Commission process and review your KCG Holdings, Inc. (‘‘KCG’’), Miami motion, the Commission typically
comments more efficiently, please use International Securities Exchange, LLC, considers whether (i) there is a strong
only one method. The Commission will and Susquehanna International Group, likelihood that the moving party will
post all comments on the Commission’s LLP (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’) 2 filed a succeed on the merits of its appeal; (ii)
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ petition for review of the Approval the moving party will suffer irreparable
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for harm without a stay; (iii) any person
submission, all subsequent the District of Columbia Circuit (‘‘D.C. will suffer substantial harm as a result
amendments, all written statements Circuit’’), challenging the Commission’s of a stay; and (iv) a stay is likely to serve
with respect to the proposed rule Approval Order as inconsistent with the
change that are filed with the Exchange Act and lacking in the Commission’s review of the Capital Plan. The
Commission, and all written reasoned decisionmaking required by Commission found, however, that it was ‘‘in the
communications relating to the the Administrative Procedure Act. public interest to the lift the stay during the
proposed rule change between the After filing their petition for review, pendency of the Commission’s review.’’ Exchange
Commission and any person, other than Act Release No. 75886 at 2 (Sept. 10, 2015), File No.
petitioners filed a motion for a stay in SR–OCC–2015–02. The Commission noted that it
those that may be withheld from the the D.C. Circuit asking the court to stay ‘‘believes that the concerns raised by Petitioners
public in accordance with the the Commission’s Approval Order regarding potential monetary and competitive harm
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be pending the court’s review. The D.C. do not currently justify maintaining the stay during
available for Web site viewing and the pendency of the Commission’s review.’’ Id.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Circuit denied petitioners’ request for a 4 Susquehanna Int’l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d
printing in the Commission’s Public stay.3 442, 443 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., 5 Id. at 446.
Washington, DC 20549, on official 23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 6 Id. at 451.
business days between the hours of 1 Exchange Act Release No. 77112 (Feb. 11, 2016), 7 Id.
File No. SR–OCC–2015–02. 8 By separate order of today’s date, we are issuing
22 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day 2 BATS Global Markets, Inc. (‘‘BATS’’) was a scheduling order governing the proceedings on
operative delay, the Commission has considered the initially a petitioner, but later withdrew. remand.
proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, 3 The petitioners had also opposed OCC’s motion 9 Petitioner KCG has not joined the instant
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). to lift the automatic stay in place pending the motion.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM 21SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_44420/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices 44239
the public interest.10 The party seeking the Plan would be no more difficult if date if the Commission, after conducting
a stay has the burden of establishing done after remand rather than the required analysis on remand, should
that relief is warranted.11 These factors immediately.’’ 17 They nonetheless determine to approve the Plan. Indeed,
weigh against granting petitioners’ stay argue that ‘‘[a] stay of the dividend is the court implicitly rejected this type of
request. needed to prevent distortion of the partial stay when petitioners proposed it
First, with respect to likelihood of competitive landscape from continuing in a pre-decision letter to the court 22
success on the merits, we note that the to harm competition.’’ 18 But petitioners and the court remanded without
court did not address petitioners’ provide no evidence that competitors entering such a stay. We believe, as the
arguments that the Plan was will be ‘‘driven from the marketplace’’ court did, that the better course is to
inconsistent with the Exchange Act. or that investors have ‘‘lost liquidity,’’ leave the status quo in place while we
Rather, it remanded for the Commission as petitioners claim.19 Thus, petitioners’ conduct a further review of the entirety
to ‘‘properly evaluate the Plan.’’ 12 By argument—which presumes they are of the Plan.
repeating their same arguments correct on the merits regarding the Accordingly, we decline to impose
regarding consistency with the Act in Plan’s effect on competition—is too the partial stay requested.
support of a stay, petitioners are asking speculative at this stage to be the basis For the reasons stated above, it is
the Commission to opine on their for relief. We also note that petitioners hereby:
likelihood of success before engaging in made these same arguments regarding Ordered that movants’ request for a
the further analysis directed by the competitive harm before the D.C. partial stay of the Capital Plan while the
court. We are not yet in a position to do Circuit, yet the court did not stay or Commission considers the Plan
so. Unlike the more typical situation in vacate the Plan. pursuant to the direction of the D.C.
which the Commission addresses stay Finally, petitioners have not Circuit is Denied.
motions, here there is neither a full demonstrated that the balance of harm
By the Commission.
record nor a final decision on which to to others in the absence of a stay and the
base such an analysis. Thus, we do not public interest favors a stay. Petitioners Brent J. Fields,
view this factor as weighing in favor of argue that ‘‘a stay would injur[e] Secretary.
the partial stay request. nobody,’’ 20 because they are asking [FR Doc. 2017–20080 Filed 9–20–17; 8:45 am]
Second, petitioners fail to establish only to stay the dividend component of BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
that they will be irreparably harmed in the Plan. But even setting aside the
the absence of a stay. To demonstrate impact on shareholder exchanges that
irreparable harm, petitioners ‘‘must are due the dividends under the Plan, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
show an injury that is ‘both certain and petitioners’ claim that the dividend COMMISSION
great’ and ‘actual and not component of the plan can be isolated
[File No. SR–OCC–2015–02; Release No.
theoretical.’ ’’ 13 ‘‘A stay ‘will not be is overly simplistic. Under the Plan, 81629]
granted [based on] something merely ‘‘OCC would not be able to pay a refund
feared as liable to occur at some on a particular date unless dividends Before the Securities and Exchange
indefinite time.’ ’’ 14 That ‘‘an applicant were paid on the same date.’’ 21 A stay Commission; Securities Exchange Act
may suffer financial detriment does not of the dividends to the shareholders of 1934; In the Matter of the The
rise to the level of irreparable injury would thus have the effect of also Options Clearing Corporation For an
warranting issuance of a stay.’’ 15 staying the payment of refunds to OCC’s Order Granting the Approval of
Petitioners acknowledge that the members. Proposed Rule Change Concerning a
monetary aspects of the Plan ‘‘are Moreover, as discussed above, the Proposed Capital Plan for Raising
readily reversible’’ 16 and that the court court squarely considered whether to Additional Capital That Would Support
concluded that ‘‘the task of unwinding vacate the Plan or leave it in effect the Options Clearing Corporation’s
during the Commission’s Function as a Systemically Important
10 Bernerd E. Young, Exchange Act Release No.
reconsideration, and decided to leave Financial Market Utility; Corrected
78440, 2016 WL 4060106, at *1 (July 29, 2016); see the Plan, including the provisions with
also Order Preliminarily Considering Whether to Order Scheduling Filing of Statements
Issue Stay Sua Sponte and Establishing Guidelines respect to dividends, in place. on Review
for Seeking Stay Applications, Exchange Act Petitioners’ request to stay that part of
Release No. 33870, 1994 WL 17920, at *1 (Apr. 7, the Plan therefore, in fact, seeks a September 14, 2017.
1994). change in the status quo that we believe On February 11, 2016, the
11 Young, Exchange Act Release No. 78440, 2016
WL 4060106, at *1.
is unsupported at this time. Granting Commission issued an order (‘‘Approval
12 866 F.3d at 451. petitioners’ request would require Order’’) approving the plan of the
13 Kenny A. Akindemowo, Exchange Act Release piecemeal suspension of portions of the Options Clearing Corporation’s (‘‘OCC’’)
No. 78352, 2016 WL 3877888, at *2 (July 18, 2016) Plan, while leaving others in place, for raising additional capital (the
(quoting Donald L. Koch, Exchange Act Release No. despite at least the possibility of having ‘‘Plan’’) to support its function as a
72443, 2014 WL 2800778, at *2 (June 20, 2014));
accord Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674
to reinstitute those provisions at a later systemically important financial market
(D.C. Cir. 1985). utility.1 BOX Options Exchange LLC,
14 Akindemowo, 2016 WL 3877888, at *2 (quoting 17 Mot. at 16. KCG Holdings, Inc., Miami International
18 Id.
Koch, 2014 WL 2800778, at *2); accord Wis. Gas Securities Exchange, LLC, and
Co., 758 F.2d at 674. 19 Id. Petitioners cite the acquisition of BATS by
Susquehanna International Group, LLP
CBOE Holdings, Inc.—which, we note, closed on
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
15 Robert J. Prager, Exchange Act Release No.
50634, 2004 WL 2480717, at *1 (Nov. 4, 2004); see February 28, 2017—in support of their argument, (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’) 2 filed a
also William Timpinaro, Exchange Act Release No. stating that there has been consolidation in the
29927, 1991 WL 288326, at *3 (Nov. 12, 1991) exchange marketplace while the Capital Plan has 22 See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter from petitioners,
(recognizing that ‘‘[m]ere injuries, however been in effect. But they supply no evidence of a dated April 17, 2017 (asking the court ‘‘at a
substantial, in terms of money, time, and energy causal relationship between that acquisition and the minimum, to stay operation of the dividend
necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are Capital Plan or the dividends at issue. component of the Plan during a remand’’).
not enough’’ to constitute irreparable harm) 20 Mot. at 16. 1 Exchange Act Release No. 77112, File No. SR–
(quoting Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. FPC, 259 21 Exchange Act Release No. 74136 (Notice of OCC–2015–02.
F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958)). Proposed Rule Change) at 15, File No. SR–OCC– 2 BATS Global Markets, Inc., was initially a
16 Mot. at 1. 2015–02. petitioner, but later withdrew.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM 21SEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_44420/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-24 14:35:04
Document Modified: 2018-10-24 14:35:04
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 44238 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR