54102 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 13, 2006 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3 In Amendment No. 1, which supplemented the 

original filing, the Exchange modified the 

implementation date for the proposed rule change 

and clarified certain aspects of the filing. 

4See Exchange Act Release No. 52314 (Aug. 22, 

2005), 70 FR 51104 (Aug. 29, 2005). 

5Several commenters filed letters regarding the 

amendments to Exchange Rule 607 in connection 

with the proposed change to NASD Rule 10308 

(NASD 2005–094), which also governs non-public/ 

industry and public arbitrators. The NYSE and the 

Commission have identified letters in response to 

both rule filings that address the proposed changes 

to NYSE Rule 607. 

See letters from Bradford D. Kaufman, Esq., 

Greenberg Traurig, dated Oct. 7, 2005 (‘‘Kaufman’’); 

Jonathan W. Evans, Esq., Jonathan W. Evans & 

Associates, dated Sept. 21, 2005 (‘‘Evans’’); L. 

Jerome Stanley, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (‘‘Stanley’’); 

Thomas D. Mauriello, Law Offices of Thomas D. 

Mauriello, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (‘‘Mauriello’’); 

William P. Torngren, Law Offices of William P. 

Torngren, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (‘‘Torngren’’); Jason 

R. Doss, Page Perry, LLC, dated Sept. 20, 2005 

(‘‘Doss’’); Brian M. Greenman, Esq., dated Sept. 20, 

2005 (‘‘Greenman’’); Teresa M. Gillis, Shustak, Jalil 

& Heller, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (‘‘Gillis’’); Susan N. 

Perkins, Esq., dated Sept. 20, 2005 (‘‘Perkins’’); 

Charles C. Mihalek, Esq. and Steven M. McCauley, 

Esq., Charles Mihalek, P.S.C., dated Sept. 20, 2005 

(‘‘Mihalek’’); Steven J. Gard, Esq., Gard, Smiley, 

Bishop & Dovin LLP, dated Sept. 20, 2005 (‘‘Gard’’); 

Scott L. Silver, Blum & Silver, LLP., dated Sept. 20, 

2005 (‘‘Silver’’); Mitchell S. Ostwald, Esq., Law 

Offices of Mitchell S. Ostwald, dated Sept. 20, 2005 

(‘‘Ostwald’’); Joel A. Goodman, Esq., Goodman & 

Nekvasil, P.A., dated Sept. 20, 2005 (‘‘Goodman’’); 

Alan C. Friedberg, Pendleton, Friedberg, Wilson & 

Hennessey, P.C., dated Sept. 19, 2005 (‘‘Friedberg’’); 

Debra G. Speyer, Law Offices of Debra G. Speyer, 

dated Sept. 19, 2005 (‘‘Speyer’’); Harvey H. Eckart, 

Eckart & Leonetti, P.A., dated Sept. 19, 2005 

(‘‘Eckart’’); G. Mark Brewer, Esq., Brewer Carlson, 

LLP, dated Sept. 19, 2005 (‘‘Brewer’’); Steve A. 

Buchwalter, first letter dated Sept. 19, 2005 and 

second letter dated Sept. 13, 2005 (‘‘Buckwalter’’); 

Royal B. Lea, III, Esq., Bingham & Lea, and Randall 

A. Pulman, Esq., Pulman, Bresnahan & Pullen, LLP, 

dated Sept. 19, 2005 (‘‘Lea’’); Richard P. Ryder, 

Securities Arbitration Commentator, Inc., dated 

Sept. 19, 2005 (‘‘Ryder’’); Eliot Goldstein, Esq., 

dated Sept. 19, 2005 (‘‘Goldstein’’); Philip M. 

Aidikoff, Aidikoff & Uhl, dated Sept. 16, 2005 

(‘‘Aidikoff’’); Bruce E. Baldinger, Esq., Baldinger & 

Levine, L.L.C., dated Sept. 16, 2005 (‘‘Baldinger’’); 

Henry D. Fellows, Jr., Fellows Johnson & La Briola, 

LLP, dated Sept. 16, 2005 (‘‘Fellows’’); Rosemary J. 

Shockman, Public Investors Arbitration Bar 

Association, dated Sept. 15, 2005 (‘‘PIABA’’); James 

D. Keeney, dated Sept. 15, 2005 (‘‘Keeney’’); Bill 

Fynes, dated Sept. 15, 2005 (‘‘Fynes’’); Jay A. 

Salamon, Hermann, Cahn & Schneider LLP, dated 

Sept. 14, 2005 (‘‘Salamon’’); Jorge A. Lopez, Esq., 

Law Offices of Jorge A. Lopez, P.A., dated Sept. 14, 

2005 (‘‘Lopez’’); Steven B. Caruso, Esq., Maddox 

Hargett & Caruso, P.C., dated Sept. 14, 2005 

(‘‘Caruso’’); Scott C. Ilgenfritz, dated Sept. 14, 2005 

(‘‘Ilgenfritz’’); Tracey Pride Stoneman, Tracey Pride 

Stoneman, P.C., dated Sept. 14, 2005 (‘‘Stoneman’’); 

Michael J. Willner, Miller Faucher and Cafferty 

LLP, dated Sept. 13, 2005 (‘‘Willner’’); Richard M. 

Layne, Layne & Lewis, LLP, dated Sept. 13, 2005 

(‘‘Layne’’); Michael Knoll, Esq., Law Offices of 

Michael Knoll, dated Sept. 13, 2005 (‘‘Knoll’’); John 

J. Miller, Law Offices of John J. Miller, P.C., dated 

Sept. 13, 2005 (‘‘Miller’’); and Seth E. Lipner, 

Professor of Law, Zicklin School of Business Baruch 

College and Member, Deutsch & Lipner, dated Sept. 

8, 2005 (‘‘Lipner’’). 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[File No. 500–1] 

In the Matter of Southwestern Medical 

Solutions, Inc.; Order of Suspension of 

Trading 

September 11, 2006. 

It appears to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission that there is a 

lack of current and accurate information 

concerning the securities of 

Southwestern Medical Solutions, Inc. 

(‘‘Southwestern’’), a non-reporting 

issuer quoted on the Pink Sheets under 

the ticker symbol SWNM, because of 

questions regarding the accuracy and 

adequacy of assertions by Southwestern, 

and by others, concerning, among other 

things: (1) The existence of applications 

for U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

approvals for its Labguard product, (2) 

the existence of a patent and trademark, 

and (3) the receipt of an order for the 

sale of several thousand units of 

Labguard. 

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 

company. 

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 company is 

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

EST, September 11, 2006 through 11:59 

p.m. EST, on September 22, 2006. 

By the Commission. 

J. Lynn Taylor, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–7654 Filed 9–11–06; 12:03 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–54407; File No. SR–NYSE–

2005–43] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New 

York Stock Exchange LLC.; Order 

Approving Proposed Rule Change and 

Amendment No. 1 Thereto to Rule 607 

Relating to the Classification of 

Arbitrators as Public or Industry 

September 6, 2006. 

I. Introduction 

On June 17, 2005, the New York Stock 

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’ or the 

‘‘Exchange’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to section 

19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act 

of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

amend Rule 607 relating to the 

classification of arbitrators as public or 

industry. On August 4, 2005, the 

Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the 

proposed rule change.3 In this 

amendment, the Exchange stated that 

the rule change will become effective 90 

days following the publication of this 

order in the Federal Register. The NYSE 

will update and reclassify arbitrators 

during this time period. The proposed 

rule change was published for comment 

in the Federal Register on August 29, 

2005,4 and the Commission received 38 

comments on the proposal.5 The 

majority of commenters are lawyers that 

represent investors in arbitrations. This 

order approves the proposed rule 

change as amended. 

II. Description of the Proposal 

Arbitration panels for disputes 

involving customers or non-members in 

which the damages are alleged to exceed 

$25,000 are comprised of three 

arbitrators: Two public arbitrators and 

one from the securities industry. A 

customer or non-member also may 

request at least a majority of arbitrators 

from the securities industry. 

Exchange Rule 607(a)(2) currently 

classifies an arbitrator as from the 

securities industry if he or she: (1) Is, or 

within the past five years was, 

associated with certain entities related 

to the securities industry (or retired 

from, or spent a substantial part of his 

or her career with such an entity); (2) is 

an attorney or other professional who 

devoted 20 percent or more of his or her 

work effort to securities industry clients 

within the past two years; or (3) is 

registered under the Commodity 

Exchange Act, or is a member of a 

registered futures association or any 

commodity exchange or is associated 

with any such person. 

Exchange Rule 607(a)(3) currently 

classifies an arbitrator who is not from 

the securities industry as a public 

arbitrator. However, a person cannot be 

classified as a public arbitrator if he or 

she has a spouse or household member 

who is associated with certain entities 

related to the securities industry. 

The NYSE is concerned that some 

arbitrators currently classified as public 

have affiliations with entities that have 

securities industry ties such as banks, 

insurance companies, mutual funds, 

holding companies and asset 

management firms. In an effort to 

enhance investor confidence in the 

NYSE arbitration forum, and in order to 

further ensure that persons serving as 

public arbitrators do not have ties to the 

securities industry or related firms, the 

Exchange proposed to amend Rule 607. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES