70292 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Notices 

(5) Interspace Enterprises, Inc. 

because the company has been 

delinquent in its periodic filing 

obligations under Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending September 30, 2002; 

(6) Mega Micro Technologies Group, 

Inc. because the company has been 

delinquent in its periodic filing 

obligations under Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending December 31, 2000; 

and 

(7) Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. 

because the company has been 

delinquent in its periodic filing 

obligations under Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending September 30, 2003. 

The Commission is of the opinion that 

the public interest and the protection of 

investors require a suspension of trading 

in the securities of the above-listed 

companies. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to 

Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 that trading in the securities 

of the above-listed companies is 

suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. 

e.s.t. on December 1, 2004, through 

11:59 p.m. e.s.t. on December 14, 2004.

By the Commission. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–26715 Filed 12–1–04; 11:48 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[File No. 500–1] 

Order of Suspension of Trading

In the Matter of Abacan Resources Corp., 

Advanced Solutions and Technologies, Inc., 

American Multiplexer Corp., Amitelo 

Communications, Inc., Comparator Systems 

Corp., Digi Link Technologies, Inc., DMT 

Energy, Inc., DrKoop.Com, Inc. Emerging 

Enterprise Solutions, Inc., Homeland 

Security Technology, Inc., First Pacific 

Networks, Inc., Heroes, Inc., Infotopia, Inc., 

JTS Corp., 1st Miracle Entertainment, Inc., 

Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Inc., United States 

Crude International, Inc., Webvan Group, 

Inc., and Whitehall Enterprises, Inc.;

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of: 

(1) Abacan Resources Corp. because 

the company has failed to file timely 

periodic reports with the Commission in 

violation of Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Exchange Act’’) since the period 

ending September 30, 1999; 

(2) Advanced Solutions and 

Technologies, Inc. (F/k/a Indexonly 

Technologies, Inc.) because the 

company has failed to file timely 

periodic reports with the Commission in 

violation of Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending September 30, 2000; 

(3) American Multiplexer Corp. 

because the company has failed to file 

timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the period ending September 

30, 2000; 

(4) Amitelo Communications, Inc. 

because the company has failed to file 

timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the period ending December 

31, 1995; 

(5) Comparator Systems Corp. because 

the company has failed to file timely 

periodic reports with the Commission in 

violation of Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending December 31, 1997; 

(6) Digi Link Technologies, Inc. 

because the company has failed to file 

timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the period ending June 30, 

2001; 

(7) DMT Energy, Inc. because the 

company has failed to file timely 

periodic reports with the Commission in 

violation of Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending November 30, 1999; 

(8) DrKoop.Com, Inc. because the 

company has failed to file timely 

periodic reports with the Commission in 

violation of Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending September 30, 2001; 

(9) Emerging Enterprise Solutions, 

Inc. because the company has failed to 

file timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the period ending March 31, 

2000; 

(10) Homeland Security Technology, 

Inc. because the company has failed to 

file timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the registration of its 

securities became effective on May 26, 

1998; 

(11) First Pacific Networks, Inc. 

because the company has failed to file 

timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the period ending September 

30, 1996; 

(12) Heroes, Inc. because the company 

has failed to file timely periodic reports 

with the Commission in violation of 

Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 since the period ending 

September 30, 2002; 

(13) Infotopia, Inc. because the 

company has failed to file timely 

periodic reports with the Commission in 

violation of Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending September 30, 2001; 

(14) JTS Corp. because the company 

has failed to file timely periodic reports 

with the Commission in violation of 

Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 since the period ending 

November 2, 1997; 

(15) 1st Miracle Entertainment, Inc. 

because the company has failed to file 

timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the period ending January 

31, 2002; 

(16) Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

because the company has failed to file 

timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the period ending March 31, 

2001; 

(17) United States Crude 

International, Inc. because the company 

has failed to file timely periodic reports 

with the Commission in violation of 

Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 since the period ending 

December 31, 2000; 

(18) Webvan Group, Inc. because the 

company has failed to file timely 

periodic reports with the Commission in 

violation of Section 13(a) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 since 

the period ending March 31, 2001; and, 

(19) Whitehall Enterprises, Inc. 

because the company has failed to file 

timely periodic reports with the 

Commission in violation of Section 

13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 since the period ending June 30, 

2002. 

The Commission is of the opinion that 

the public interest and the protection of 

investors require a suspension of trading 

in the securities of the above-listed 

companies. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to 

Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934, that trading in the 

securities of the above-listed companies 

is suspended for the period from 9:30 

a.m. e.s.t. on December 1, 2004, through 

11:59 p.m. e.s.t. on December 14, 2004.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Notices 70293

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

3See Release No. 34–42160 (November 19, 1999), 

64 FR 66681 (November 29, 1999).

4See letters from Barry D. Estell, dated December 

15, 1999 (‘‘Estell Letter’’), and John J. Miller, dated 

December 27, 1999 (‘‘Miller Letter’’).

5See Release No. 34–48444 (September 4, 2003), 

68 FR 53762 (September 12, 2003).

6See letters from Al Van Kampen, Rohde & Van 

Kampen, dated October 11, 2003; Barbara Black and 

Jill I. Gross, Pace Investor Rights Project, Pace 

University School of Law, dated October 2, 2003 

(‘‘Pace Letter’’); Carl J. Carlson, Carlson & Fabish, 

P.S., dated October 5, 2003; Daniel A. Ball, Selzer, 

Gurvitch, Rabin, Obecny, dated October 3, 2003; 

Don K. Leufven, dated October 9, 2003; Donald G. 

McGrath, McGrath & Polvino, PLLC, dated October 

3, 2003; H. Douglas Powell, Fishkind & Associates, 

Inc., dated October 6, 2003; Herb Pounds, Herbert 

E. Pounds, Jr., P.C., dated October 6, 2003; J. Pat 

Sadler, Public Investors’ Arbitration Bar 

Association, dated October 2, 2003; Jeffrey A. 

Feldman, Esquire, dated October 6, 2003; John 

Miller, Law Office of John L. Miller, P.C., dated 

October 5, 2003; Jorge A. Lopez, Esquire, Jorge A. 

Lopez, P.A., dated October 5, 2003; Kari S. 

Turigliatto, Mutual Service Corporation, dated 

October 8, 2003; Kenneth A. Martyn, Attorney at 

Law, dated October 8, 2003; Laurence S. Schultz, 

Driggers, Schultz & Herbst, P.C., dated October 3, 

2003; Lenny Steiner, dated October 4, 2003; 

Madelaine Eppenstein and Theodore G. Eppenstein, 

Eppenstein and Eppenstein, dated October 3, 2003; 

Ralph A. Lambiase, North American Securities 

Administrators Association, Inc., dated October 3, 

2003; Richard M. Layne, Layne & Lewis LLP, dated 

October 2, 2003; Robert S. Banks, Jr., Banks Law 

Office, P.C., dated October 3, 2003; Rosemary J. 

Shockman, Shockman Law Office, P.C., dated 

October 2, 2003; Scott C. Iigenfritz, Johnson, Pope, 

Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A., dated October 16, 

2003; Steve Buchwalter, Law Offices of Steve A. 

Buchwalter, P.C., dated October 3, 2003; and Tracy 

Pride Stoneman, Tracy Pride Stoneman, P.C., dated 

October 3, 2003.

7See letter from Kosha Dalal, Assistant General 

Counsel, NASD, to Katherine A. England, Assistant 

Director, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, dated 

January 9, 2004 (‘‘Amendment No. 5’’).

8See Estell Letter and Miller Letter, supra note 4.

9See supra note 6.

By the Commission. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–26716 Filed 12–1–04; 11:48 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–50713; File No. SR–NASD–

98–74] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order 

Granting Approval to Proposed Rule 

Change as Amended and Notice of 

Filing and Order Granting Accelerated 

Approval to Amendment No. 5 by the 

National Association of Securities 

Dealers, Inc., Regarding NASD Rule 

3110(f) Governing Predispute 

Arbitration Agreements With 

Customers 

November 22, 2004. 

I. Introduction 

On October 6, 1998, the National 

Association of Securities Dealers 

(‘‘NASD’’) filed with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’

or ‘‘SEC’’) a proposed rule change 

pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder to 

amend NASD Rule 3110(f) governing 

predispute arbitration agreements.2

Notice of the proposal, as amended by 

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 29, 1999.3 The Commission 

received two comment letters on the 

proposed rule change.4 On April 30, 

2002, NASD submitted a Response to 

Comments and Amendment No. 3 to the 

proposed rule change. On August 22, 

2003, NASD filed Amendment No. 4 to 

the proposal, which replaced in its 

entirety the prior filings and 

amendments, except for the Response to 

Comments contained in Amendment 

No. 3. Notice of the proposal, as 

amended by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4, 

was published in the Federal Register

on September 12, 2003.5 The 

Commission received 24 comment 

letters on Amendment Nos. 3 and 4.6 On 

January 9, 2004, NASD submitted a 

Response to Comments and Amendment 

No. 5 to the proposed rule change.7 This 

order approves the proposed rule 

change, grants accelerated approval to 

Amendment No. 5, and solicits 

comments from interested persons on 

Amendment No. 5.

II. Description of the Proposal 

A. Background 

1. Purpose and General Description of 

Proposal 

The proposed rule change is intended 

to increase the disclosure required in 

predispute arbitration agreements. Many 

broker-dealers require that customers 

seeking to open accounts, particularly 

margin and option accounts or accounts 

with a checking or money market 

feature, agree in writing to arbitrate 

disputes concerning the account, 

typically in an SRO-sponsored forum. 

These agreements, called ‘‘predispute 

arbitration agreements,’’ are generally 

part of the non-negotiated customer 

agreement drafted by the firm. 

To ensure that customers are advised 

about what they are agreeing to when 

they sign predispute arbitration 

agreements, NASD Rule 3110(f) requires 

that such agreements contain 

highlighted disclosure about differences 

between arbitration and litigation, 

including notice that by agreeing to 

arbitrate their disputes, customers may 

be waiving certain rights that would be 

available in court. NASD Rule 3110(f) 

also requires that the agreement itself be 

highlighted, and that a copy of the 

agreement be given to the customer and 

acknowledged by the customer in 

writing.

Despite these precautions, investor 

representatives have expressed concern 

that many customers who sign 

predispute arbitration agreements still 

do not understand adequately what they 

are agreeing to. Customers’ perceptions 

of unfairness are heightened by the fact 

that, in order to open an account, they 

are forced to agree to SRO-sponsored 

arbitration. 

Consequently, the Arbitration Task 

Force, chaired by David Ruder (formerly 

Chairman of the SEC and a former 

NASD Board member), recommended in 

its 1996 report, Securities Arbitration 

Reform: Report of the Arbitration Policy 

Task Force to the Board of Governors, 

National Association of Securities 

Dealers, Inc. (‘‘Ruder Task Force 

Report’’), that members be required to 

provide more disclosure about 

arbitration to customers who sign 

predispute arbitration agreements, and 

that the use of certain provisions that 

limit rights and remedies be restricted. 

Thus, NASD proposes to amend 

NASD Rule 3110(f) regarding predispute 

arbitration agreements (i) to require 

additional disclosure in predispute 

arbitration agreements about the 

arbitration process, including possible 

limits on eligibility of claims; (ii) to 

require member firms to provide certain 

information regarding arbitration and 

predispute arbitration agreements to 

customers upon request; (iii) to provide 

explicitly that the rules of the 

arbitration forum in which the claim is 

filed are incorporated into the 

predispute arbitration agreement; and 

(iv) to require members seeking to 

compel arbitration of claims initiated in 

court to arbitrate all of the claims 

contained in the complaint if the 

customer so requests. 

2. General Comments on the Proposed 

Rule Change 

In 1999, the Commission received two 

comment letters on the proposal, as 

amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2.8

In 2003, the Commission received 24 

comment letters on the proposal, as 

amended by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4.9

Several commenters applauded the 

proposed rule change as an effort to 

help investors understand the 

consequences of signing predispute 

arbitration agreements. The majority of 

commenters, however, opposed 

Proposed Rule 3110(f)(4)(B), relating to