105128 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 

58 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12), (59). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3See FINRA, Expedited Proceedings for Senior or 

Seriously Ill Parties, https://www.finra.org/ 

arbitration-mediation/rules-case-resources/specialprocedures/expedited-proceedings-seniorsseriously-ill. 

4See supra note 3. 

5See supra note 3. 

6See infra Item II.B.2 (discussing Economic 

Baseline). 

7See infra Item II.B.3 (discussing Economic 

Impacts). 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.58

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30780 Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101957; File No. SR– 

FINRA–2024–021] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Financial Industry Regulatory 

Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a 

Proposed Rule Change To Amend the 

Codes of Arbitration Procedure To 

Adopt FINRA Rules 12808 and 13808 

(Accelerated Processing) To 

Accelerate the Processing of 

Arbitration Proceedings for Parties 

Who Qualify Based on Their Age or 

Health Condition 

December 18, 2024. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on December 

11, 2024, the Financial Industry 

Regulatory Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

the proposed rule change as described 

in Items I, II, and III below, which Items 

have been prepared by FINRA. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

FINRA is proposing to amend the 

Code of Arbitration Procedure for 

Customer Disputes (‘‘Customer Code’’) 

and the Code of Arbitration Procedure 

for Industry Disputes (‘‘Industry Code’’) 

(together, ‘‘Codes’’) to add new FINRA 

Rules 12808 and 13808 (Accelerated 

Processing) to accelerate the processing 

of arbitration proceedings for parties 

who qualify based on their age or health 

condition. 

The text of the proposed rule change 

is available on FINRA’s website at 

https://www.finra.org, at the principal 

office of FINRA and at the 

Commission’s Public Reference Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, 

FINRA included statements concerning 

the purpose of and basis for the 

proposed rule change and discussed any 

comments it received on the proposed 

rule change. The text of these statements 

may be examined at the places specified 

in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared 

summaries, set forth in sections A, B, 

and C below, of the most significant 

aspects of such statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

I. Background 

FINRA currently offers a program to 

expedite arbitration proceedings in the 

forum administered by FINRA Dispute 

Resolution Services (‘‘DRS’’) for parties 

who have a serious health condition or 

are at least 65 years old (‘‘current 

program’’).3 When an eligible party 

makes a request to expedite the 

proceedings under the current program, 

DRS staff will expedite the case-related 

tasks that they can control, such as 

completing the arbitrator selection 

process, scheduling the initial 

prehearing conference, and serving the 

final award.4 In addition, the current 

program ‘‘encourage[s]’’ arbitrators to be 

sensitive to the needs of parties who are 

seniors or seriously ill when making 

scheduling decisions and setting 

deadlines.5 Critically, however, the 

current program does not provide for 

shortened, rule-based deadlines for 

parties or provide arbitrators with 

direction on how quickly the arbitration 

should be completed. 

Although the intent of the current 

program is to shorten case processing 

times for parties that qualify based on 

their age or health condition, cases that 

qualify for the current program close 

only marginally more quickly than cases 

that are not in the current program. 

While the median time for customer 

arbitrations that are not in the current 

program to close is approximately 15.7 

months, the median time for customer 

arbitrations that are in the current 

program to close is approximately 13.7 

months, a difference of just two 

months.6

FINRA believes that it would protect 

investors and the public interest to 

materially shorten case processing times 

for those parties who may be unable to 

meaningfully participate in a lengthy 

arbitration because of their age or health 

condition. As is discussed more fully 

below, when a party is unable to 

meaningfully participate in an 

arbitration—for example, if they become 

ill and are unable to testify—the 

outcome of the proceeding may be 

affected. This potentially harms not 

only the immediate parties to the 

arbitration but also the broader 

investing public because the resolution 

of the arbitration may not accurately 

reflect the underlying merits of the case. 

Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to 

add a new rule to the Codes that would 

help to accelerate the arbitration process 

for those parties who qualify based on 

their age or health condition. Unlike the 

current program, the proposed rule 

change would establish shortened caseprocessing deadlines for the parties, 

including the time to respond to 

discovery deadlines, and provide 

direction to arbitrators regarding how 

quickly the proceeding should be 

completed. By codifying these 

shortened deadlines and providing 

additional direction to arbitrators, 

FINRA believes that the length of the 

proceedings subject to the proposed rule 

change would shorten by approximately 

six months, which would make a 

meaningful difference for older parties 

or those suffering from a serious health 

condition.7 The proposed rule change 

would be more likely than the current 

program, which does not provide for 

shortened, rule-based deadlines for 

parties or provide arbitrators with 

direction on how quickly the arbitration 

should be completed, to accelerate the 

proceedings for those parties who may 

not be able to meaningfully participate 

throughout the course of a lengthy 

arbitration. If the Commission approves 

the proposed rule change, the 

requirements of the new rule would 

apply to those who qualify and request 

accelerated processing, thereby 

replacing the current program. In 

addition, for those parties who may 

benefit from shortened proceedings but 

do not meet the eligibility requirements 

of the proposed rule change, the 

proposed rule change would allow the 

parties to request that the panel 

consider other factors, including their 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 105129 

8See proposed Rules 12808(a)(1) and 13808(a)(1). 

9See proposed Rules 12808(a)(1)(A) and 

13808(a)(1)(A). 

10See infra Item II.B.3 (discussing Economic 

Impacts). 

11See infra Item II.B.3 (discussing Economic 

Impacts). 

12 In Regulatory Notice 22–09 (March 2022) 

(‘‘Notice’’), FINRA sought comment on a proposed 

rule change to accelerate arbitration proceedings for 

those parties who may not be able to meaningfully 

participate in lengthy proceedings. See infra Item 

II.C. (discussing the Notice and summarizing the 

comments). 

13See infra Item II.C.1 (discussing comments to 

the Notice addressing the need for the proposed 

rule change). 

14See infra Item II.B.4 (discussing Alternatives 

Considered). 

15Lowering the proposed age cutoff from 70 to 

65—the same age cutoff for the current program— 

would increase the total number of customer 

claimants who would qualify for accelerated 

processing from 20 percent to 26 percent. In 2023, 

with a proposed age cutoff of 65, customer 

claimants in 492 arbitrations (26 percent of 1,891 

arbitrations where customers appeared as claimant) 

would qualify for accelerated processing. See infra 

Item II.B.4 (discussing Alternatives Considered). 

Although the proposed rule change would permit 

any party who is a natural person to request 

accelerated processing, FINRA anticipates, based on 

its experience with the current program, that most 

requests would come from customer claimants. See 

infra note 45 and accompanying text. 

16See infra Item II.B.3 (discussing Economic 

Impacts). 

17Although shortening the length of the 

proceedings for parties who qualify for accelerated 

processing is an important goal, FINRA understands 

that speed cannot come at the cost of procedural 

fairness. However, FINRA believes that 10 months 

should provide a reasonable and fair opportunity 

for discovery, motions, briefing, and hearings to be 

completed. 

18See infra Item II.B.3 (discussing Economic 

Impacts). 

age and health, when scheduling 

hearings and discovery, briefing, and 

motion deadlines. Thus, although these 

proceedings would not be subject to the 

shortened, rule-based deadlines of the 

proposed rule change, the panel may 

determine at a party’s request, to 

expedite the proceedings based on the 

party’s particular circumstances, 

including developing a serious health 

condition during the arbitration 

proceeding. 

II. Proposed Rule Change 

A. Requesting Accelerated Case 

Processing 

Under the proposed rule change, 

parties would be able to request 

accelerated processing if they meet one 

of two eligibility requirements, based on 

their age or their health condition.8

FINRA addresses each of these 

eligibility requirements in turn below. 

1. Eligibility Based on Age 

The first way for a party to qualify for 

accelerated processing under the 

proposed rule change would be based 

on their age. Under proposed Rules 

12808(a)(1)(A) and 13808(a)(1)(A), a 

party may request accelerated 

processing of a case when initiating an 

arbitration or filing an answer provided 

that the party making the request is at 

least 70 years of age at the time of the 

request.9

FINRA believes it is appropriate for 

parties who are 70 years of age and 

older to qualify for accelerated 

processing because these parties are 

more likely than younger individuals to 

become seriously ill or experience an 

adverse health condition during the 

course of an arbitration.10 Because of 

their age, it is also more likely that 

parties who are at least 70 years of age 

may not live to see the outcome of the 

arbitration proceedings.11 For these 

reasons, these parties may not be able to 

meaningfully participate throughout the 

course of a lengthy arbitration 

proceeding. For example, as forum users 

have noted, elderly parties may be 

unable to consult with their counsel or 

otherwise assist in the preparation of 

the case.12 These parties also may be 

unable to testify.13 This, in turn, could 

affect the outcome of the proceedings. 

For example, if a party is unavailable to 

testify because they are deceased or 

suffering from an adverse health 

condition, the arbitrators would have no 

opportunity to observe the party’s 

demeanor and, thus, may be unable to 

assess their credibility. By shortening 

the length of the arbitration for 

individuals who are at least 70 years of 

age, the proposed rule change would 

make it more likely that these parties are 

able to meaningfully participate for the 

duration of the arbitration proceedings. 

This, in turn, would help ensure that 

the outcomes of the cases accurately 

reflect the underlying merits. 

Further, as is discussed in more detail 

below, a party younger than 70, but who 

has an eligible health condition, still 

would be able to request accelerated 

processing under proposed Rules 

12808(a)(1)(B) and 13808(a)(1)(B) 

provided that the party making the 

request certifies, in the manner and 

form required by the Director, that (i) 

the party has received a medical 

diagnosis and prognosis and (ii) based 

on that medical diagnosis and 

prognosis, the party has a reasonable 

belief that accelerated processing of the 

case is necessary to prevent prejudicing 

the party’s interest in the arbitration. 

FINRA understands that, under the 

proposed rule change, some younger 

parties would not be eligible to request 

accelerated processing based on either 

their age or their health condition. 

Although some of these parties might 

benefit if their arbitrations were 

completed more quickly, as discussed in 

more detail below,14 FINRA does not 

believe that a lower age cutoff, such as 

an age cut off of 65 (consistent with the 

current program), would be appropriate. 

First, under proposed Rules 

12808(a)(3) and 13808(a)(3), parties who 

would not qualify for accelerated 

processing based on either their age or 

health condition still would be able to 

request, once the panel is appointed, 

that the panel consider other factors, 

including their age or a change in their 

health condition during the arbitration 

proceeding, when scheduling hearings 

and discovery, briefing, and motion 

deadlines. Thus, although these 

proceedings would not be subject to the 

shortened, rule-based deadlines of the 

proposed rule change, the panel may 

determine at a party’s request, to 

expedite the proceedings based on the 

party’s particular circumstances. 

Second, due to the increase in the 

number of customer claimants who 

would qualify for accelerated 

processing,15 a lower age cutoff might 

make it difficult for arbitrators—many of 

whom might have to serve concurrently 

on more than one arbitration 16—to 

comply with their obligations under 

proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(B), 

12808(b)(2)(C), 13808(b)(2)(B), and 

13808(b)(2)(C) to endeavor to hold 

hearings and render an award within 10 

months or less in accelerated 

proceedings.17

Third, a lower age cut off may have 

a negative impact on non-accelerated 

customer arbitrations. Arbitrators and 

industry parties and their counsel are 

often involved in more than one 

arbitration at the same time and may 

seek to extend the case processing times 

of their concurrent, non-accelerated 

arbitrations in order to meet the 

shortened deadlines that would apply to 

their accelerated arbitrations.18

Based on these considerations, FINRA 

believes that an age cutoff of 70 would 

help ensure that the proposed rule 

change is effective at helping those 

parties who would benefit most from 

accelerated processing. That said, if the 

Commission approves the proposed rule 

change, FINRA would monitor the 

program to determine if adjustments to 

the age cutoff for qualifying for 

accelerated processing are warranted. 

2. Eligibility Based on Health 

In addition to allowing parties to 

qualify for accelerated processing based 

on their age, the proposed rule change 

separately would allow parties to 

qualify based on their health condition. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
105130 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 

19Under the Codes, the term ‘‘Director’’ means 

the Director of DRS. Unless the Codes provide that 

the Director may not delegate a specific function, 

the term includes FINRA staff to whom the Director 

has delegated authority. See FINRA Rules 

12100(m), 12103, 13100(m), and 13103. 

20See infra note 80 and accompanying text. 

21Under existing FINRA Rules 12212 and 13212, 

potential sanctions include, but are not limited to, 

monetary penalties, an adverse inference, or a 

preclusion order. 

22See infra note 81 and accompanying text. 

23See infra note 82 and accompanying text. 

24See proposed Rules 12808(a)(2) and 

13808(a)(2). 

25See, e.g., Hansen v. Combined Transp., Inc., 

Case No. 1:13–cv–01993, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

63490, at *6–9 (D. Or. May 8, 2014) (because 

plaintiff alleged emotional distress damages, court 

found that, under Oregon and Washington law, he 

had placed his psychological condition at issue and 

granted the defendants’ motion to compel the 

production of any records of the plaintiff’s 

treatment by a medical professional for emotional 

or psychological matters); Kirk v. Schaeffler Group 

USA, Inc., No. 3:13–cv–05032, 2014 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 83963, at *2–9 (W.D. Mo. June 20, 2014) 

(plaintiff was required, under Missouri law, to 

produce medical records related to her autoimmune 

disorder because those records were relevant to her 

claim that her autoimmune disorder was caused by 

exposure to chemicals released from the 

defendants’ manufacturing plant); Desrosiers v. 

Hartford, No. C 12–80104, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

64554, at *1–4 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2012) (applying 

California law, the court compelled compliance 

with subpoenas that sought the production of the 

plaintiff’s medical records where she alleged that 

her employer’s actions caused her to suffer 

emotional and psychological injuries). 

26See supra note 19. 

Specifically, under proposed Rules 

12808(a)(1)(B) and 13808(a)(1)(B), a 

party may request accelerated 

processing of a case when initiating an 

arbitration or filing an answer provided 

that the party making the request 

certifies, in the manner and form 

required by the Director, that (i) the 

party has received a medical diagnosis 

and prognosis, and (ii) based on that 

medical diagnosis and prognosis, the 

party has a reasonable belief that 

accelerated processing of the case is 

necessary to prevent prejudicing the 

party’s interest in the arbitration 

(‘‘eligible health condition’’). 

FINRA believes it is appropriate to 

allow parties, regardless of age, to 

qualify for accelerated processing based 

on an eligible health condition. Parties 

who are suffering from an eligible health 

condition may be unable to 

meaningfully participate in a lengthy 

arbitration proceeding, which, in turn, 

could affect the outcome of the 

proceeding. 

Unlike the proposed rule change, the 

current program does not require a 

certification to qualify for expedited 

proceedings based on a party’s health 

condition. Under the current program, 

the Director determines whether the 

party qualifies for the program on the 

face of the information contained in the 

party’s request at the outset of the case 

through the online claim filing form, 

statement of claim, or optional cover 

letter.19 If it is not clear from the request 

whether the party qualifies for the 

current program, the Director may 

request additional information from the 

party. 

FINRA believes that the proposed 

certification requirement is the most 

appropriate way to minimize 

unnecessary intrusions into a party’s 

private health information while, at the 

same time, allowing FINRA to identify 

those individuals who could benefit 

most from accelerated processing 

because they are suffering from an 

eligible health condition. 

FINRA understands the concerns of 

some forum users that, unless proof of 

their medical condition is required, 

parties may submit a false certification 

in order to qualify for accelerated 

processing.20 However, FINRA has no 

evidence that parties have falsely 

claimed to be suffering from a serious 

health condition under the current 

program nor any reason to believe that 

this kind of misconduct is more likely 

under the proposed rule change. 

Moreover, FINRA believes that the 

threat of potential sanctions under 

existing FINRA Rules 12212 and 13212 

should be sufficient to deter parties 

from falsely certifying that they have 

been diagnosed with an eligible health 

condition in order to qualify for 

accelerated processing.21

Finally, some forum users have 

expressed the concern that parties who 

request accelerated processing on the 

basis of an eligible health condition 

could be subject to discovery requests 

for the production of medical records or 

other private information about their 

health condition.22 FINRA agrees with 

these forum users that in addition to 

raising privacy concerns, such discovery 

requests—or a requirement for 

additional proof of a party’s health 

condition—could deter parties from 

making valid requests for accelerated 

processing and also unnecessarily delay 

the proceedings.23 To address these 

concerns, the proposed rule change 

would make clear that a party does not 

open the door to discovery into their 

health condition merely by requesting 

accelerated processing.24 Specifically, 

under proposed Rules 12808(a)(2) and 

13808(a)(2), a party’s certification of an 

eligible health condition shall not alone 

be sufficient grounds to compel the 

production of information concerning, 

or to allow questioning at any hearing 

about, the party’s medical condition. 

The proposed rule change would not 

address a party’s ability to request 

medical information for other 

appropriate reasons that are unrelated to 

the certification. For example, state law 

may allow a claimant’s medical records 

to be discovered when a claimant places 

their medical condition at issue in their 

claim.25

Based on these considerations, FINRA 

believes that the proposed certification 

requirement and the threat of potential 

sanctions would be sufficient to protect 

against abuse of the process while, at 

the same time, minimizing unnecessary 

intrusions into a party’s private medical 

information. 

3. Requests by Other Parties for 

Accelerated Processing 

Finally, as noted above, for those 

parties who may benefit from shortened 

proceedings but do not meet the 

eligibility requirements of the proposed 

rule change, proposed Rules 12808(a)(3) 

and 13808(a)(3) would allow those 

parties to request that the panel 

consider other factors, including their 

age or a change in their health condition 

during the arbitration proceeding, when 

scheduling hearings and discovery, 

briefing, and motions deadlines. Thus, 

although these proceedings would not 

be subject to the shortened, rule-based 

deadlines of the proposed rule change, 

the panel may determine at a party’s 

request, to expedite the proceedings 

based on the party’s particular 

circumstances. 

B. Determination of Eligibility 

Under proposed Rules 12808(b)(1) 

and 13808(b)(1), the Director would be 

responsible for determining whether a 

requesting party qualifies for accelerated 

processing.26 When assessing eligibility 

for accelerated processing, the Director 

would make an objective determination 

as to whether the requesting party is at 

least 70 years of age or has submitted 

the required certification regarding an 

eligible health condition. This 

determination would not require any 

assessment by the Director regarding the 

reasonableness of the requesting party’s 

belief that accelerated processing is 

necessary. 

C. Accelerating the Proceedings 

Once the Director determines that an 

arbitration qualifies for accelerated 

processing, the proposed rule change 

would accelerate the proceedings in 

three ways. First, the proposed rule 

change would accelerate the arbitrator 

selection process by shortening the 

deadlines for the Director to send the 

list of potential arbitrators to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 105131 

27See proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(A) and 

13808(b)(2)(A). 28See proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(B), 

12808(b)(2)(C), 13808(b)(2)(B), and 13808(b)(2)(C). 29See proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(D) and 

13808(b)(2)(D). 30FINRA uses a list selection algorithm that 

generates, on a random basis, lists of arbitrators 

from FINRA’s rosters of arbitrators for the selected 

hearing location for each proceeding. The parties 

select their panel through a process of striking and 

ranking the arbitrators on the lists generated by the 

list selection algorithm. See FINRA Rules 12400(a) 

and 13400(a). 

31See FINRA Rules 12402(c)(1), 12403(b)(1) and 

13403(c)(1). 

32See infra Item II.B.2 (discussing Economic 

Baseline). 

33See infra Item II.B.3 (discussing Economic 

Impacts). 

34See supra note 17. 

35Further, as is discussed more fully, infra note 

42 and accompanying text, even after the proposed 

rule change is adopted, arbitrators would continue 

to have flexibility under existing FINRA rules to 

modify the deadlines that apply to the parties when 

appropriate. See FINRA Rules 12508(b) and 

13508(b) (allowing arbitrators to excuse untimely 

objections to discovery requests where ‘‘the party 

had substantial justification for failing to make the 

objection within the required time’’); FINRA Rules 

12207(b) and 13207(b) (authorizing arbitrators to 

extend or modify any deadline ‘‘either on its own 

initiative or upon motion of a party’’). 

36See FINRA Rules 12303 and 13303. 

37See FINRA Rules 12306 and 13306. 

38See FINRA Rules 12403 and 13404. 

39See FINRA Rule 12506. 

40See FINRA Rules 12507 and 13507. 

parties.27 Second, the proposed rule 

change would provide arbitrators with 

direction on how quickly the arbitration 

should be completed.28 Third, the 

proposed rule change would shorten 

certain deadlines that apply to the 

parties.29

1. Accelerating the Arbitrator Selection 

Process 

The first way that the proposed rule 

change would shorten the proceedings 

is by requiring that the Director send out 

the lists of potential arbitrators to the 

parties more quickly.30 Currently, DRS 

is required to send a list of potential 

arbitrators to all parties at the same 

time, ‘‘within approximately 30 days 

after the last answer is due,’’ regardless 

of the parties’ agreement to extend any 

answer due date.31 By contrast, 

proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(A) and 

13808(b)(2)(A) would require the 

Director to send the arbitrator lists 

generated by the list selection algorithm 

to all parties ‘‘as soon as practicable 

after the last answer is due.’’ In practice, 

the Director generally sends the 

arbitrator lists to parties in fewer than 

30 days after the last answer due date. 

By requiring that the Director send the 

arbitrator lists ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ 

after the last answer is due, it would 

signal that the lists shall be sent shortly 

after the last answer due date, but 

would retain some flexibility for the 

Director in sending the lists. 

2. Guidance to Arbitrators Regarding 

Completion of the Arbitration 

The second way that the proposed 

rule change would shorten the length of 

the proceedings is to provide arbitrators 

with direction as to how quickly the 

case should be completed. Specifically, 

under proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(B) 

and 13808(b)(2)(B), the panel shall 

endeavor to render an award within 10 

months of the date the Director 

determines that a case is subject to 

accelerated processing. In addition, 

under proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(C) 

and 13808(b)(2)(C), the panel shall hold 

a prehearing conference at which it 

shall set discovery, briefing, and 

motions deadlines, and schedule 

hearing sessions, that are consistent 

with rendering an award within 10 

months or less. 

By providing arbitrators with specific 

guidance regarding how quickly they 

should endeavor to complete an 

arbitration, FINRA believes that the 

proposed rule change would be more 

likely than the current program—which 

does not provide arbitrators with any 

similar guidance—to significantly 

reduce the overall length of the 

proceedings in cases that qualify for 

accelerated processing. 

FINRA also believes that 10 months is 

the appropriate timeframe within which 

arbitrators should endeavor to render 

awards in accelerated arbitrations. 

Currently, the median time for customer 

arbitrations to close by award after a 

hearing when they are not part of the 

current program is almost 16 months, as 

is discussed more fully below.32

Shortening the length of the proceedings 

by approximately six months would 

make a meaningful difference for a party 

who is at least 70 years old or suffering 

from an eligible health condition.33

As noted above, although shortening 

the length of the proceedings for parties 

who qualify for accelerated processing 

is an important goal, FINRA 

understands that speed cannot come at 

the cost of fairness. However, FINRA 

believes that 10 months should provide 

a reasonable and fair opportunity for 

discovery, motions, briefing, and 

hearings to be completed.34

At the same time, FINRA recognizes 

that there are some cases that may 

qualify for accelerated processing but 

that cannot reasonably be completed 

within 10 months because, for example, 

they are too complex. As to these 

matters, FINRA believes that the 

proposed rule change—which would 

establish a benchmark but would not 

mandate that all cases be completed 

within 10 months—would provide the 

arbitrators with sufficient flexibility to 

accommodate the particular 

circumstances of each case.35

3. Shortening Party Deadlines 

Finally, the third way that the 

proposed rule change would shorten the 

length of the proceedings is to shorten 

several of the default deadlines that 

apply to parties under the Codes, as 

follows: 

• Serving an Answer. Under the 

Codes, a respondent must serve an 

answer within 45 days of receipt of the 

statement of claim.36 Under proposed 

Rules 12808(b)(2)(D)(i) and 

13808(b)(2)(D)(i), a respondent would be 

required to serve an answer within 30 

days of receipt of the statement of claim. 

• Responding to a Third Party Claim. 

Under the Codes, a party responding to 

a third party claim must serve a 

response within 45 days of receipt of the 

third party claim.37 Under proposed 

Rules 12808(b)(2)(D)(ii) and 

13808(b)(2)(D)(ii), a party responding to 

a third party claim would be required to 

serve a response within 30 days of 

receipt of the third party claim. 

• Completing Arbitrator Lists. Under 

the Codes, parties must return the 

ranked arbitrator lists to the Director no 

more than 20 days after the lists were 

sent to the parties.38 Under proposed 

Rules 12808(b)(2)(D)(iii) and 

13808(b)(2)(D) (iii), parties would be 

required to return the ranked arbitrator 

lists to the Director no more than 10 

days after the lists are sent to the 

parties. 

• Discovery in Customer Cases. Under 

the Customer Code, parties in customer 

cases are required to produce to all 

other parties documents that are 

described in the Document Production 

Lists on FINRA’s website; explain why 

specific documents cannot be produced; 

or object and file an objection with the 

Director within 60 days of the date that 

the answer to the statement of claim or 

third party claim is due, unless the 

parties agree otherwise.39 Under 

proposed Rule 12808(b)(2)(D)(iv), 

parties in customer cases would be 

required to respond to the Document 

Production Lists within 35 days of the 

date the answer to the statement of 

claim or third party claim is due, unless 

the parties agree otherwise. 

• Other Discovery Requests. Under 

the Codes, parties must respond within 

60 days of receipt to requests for other 

documents or information, unless the 

parties agree otherwise.40 Under 

proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(D)(v) and 

13808(b)(2)(D)(iv), parties would be 

required to respond to requests for other 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
105132 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 

41See infra Item II.C.4 (discussing comments to 

the Notice addressing the proposed shortened 

deadlines for parties and guidance to arbitrators). 

42Proposed Rules 12808(b)(2)(D)(iv), 

12808(b)(2)(D)(v), and 13808(b)(2)(D)(iv) similarly 

would permit the parties to mutually agree to 

extend discovery deadlines. 

43FINRA notes that the proposed rule change 

would impact all members, including members that 

are funding portals or have elected to be treated as 

capital acquisition brokers (‘‘CABs’’), given that the 

funding portal and CAB rule sets incorporate the 

impacted FINRA rules by reference. 

44 15 U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6). 

45Parties requested expedited processing in few 

arbitrations where customers appeared only as 

respondent or that were intra-industry arbitrations. 

For this reason, FINRA focuses the empirical 

discussion on customer arbitrations where 

customers appeared as claimant. 

documents and information within 30 

days of receipt, unless the parties agree 

otherwise. 

Based on FINRA’s experience, FINRA 

believes these proposed shortened 

deadlines are reasonable and would not 

compromise the fairness of the 

arbitration proceedings because they 

would be manageable in most cases. In 

addition, arbitrators and parties could 

extend the proposed deadlines if 

warranted. Specifically, there may be 

some cases in which the complexity of 

the case, the volume of discovery, or 

other factors may justify extending these 

proposed deadlines.41 Under such 

circumstances, the existing provisions 

of the Codes would provide the parties 

and arbitrators with the flexibility to 

address the unique facts and 

circumstances of each case. Specifically, 

under existing FINRA Rules 12207(a) 

and 13207(a), the parties may agree to 

extend or modify any deadline for 

serving an answer, returning the ranked 

arbitrator or chairperson lists, 

responding to motions, or exchanging 

documents or witness lists.42 Under 

existing FINRA Rules 12207(b) and 

13207(b), the panel may extend or 

modify any deadline for serving an 

answer, responding to motions, 

exchanging documents or witness lists, 

or any other deadline set by the panel, 

either on its own initiative or upon 

motion of a party. Further, under 

existing FINRA Rules 12508(b) and 

13508(b), the panel may extend the time 

for a party to object to discovery 

requests if the party has ‘‘substantial 

justification for failing to make the 

objection within the required time.’’ 

While these provisions in the Codes 

provide the panel and the parties with 

flexibility to modify the shortened 

deadlines in the proposed rule change, 

FINRA expects the extensions to be the 

exception and not the rule. Accordingly, 

if the Commission approves the 

proposed rule change, FINRA would 

provide training and guidance to 

arbitrators on accelerated processing, 

which would include training on 

evaluating requests to extend the 

proposed shortened deadlines. 

If the Commission approves the 

proposed rule change, FINRA will 

announce the effective date of the 

proposed rule change in a Regulatory 

Notice.43

2. Statutory Basis 

FINRA believes that the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the provisions 

of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,44 which 

requires, among other things, that 

FINRA rules must be designed to 

prevent fraudulent and manipulative 

acts and practices, to promote just and 

equitable principles of trade, and, in 

general, to protect investors and the 

public interest. 

FINRA believes that the proposed rule 

change will protect investors and the 

public interest by shortening case 

processing times for those parties—most 

of whom are likely to be customers— 

who may not be able to meaningfully 

participate for the duration of a lengthy 

arbitration because of their age or health 

condition. When parties are unable to 

meaningfully participate in an 

arbitration, it can affect the outcome of 

the proceedings. By shortening the 

length of the arbitration for these 

parties, the proposed rule change will 

make it more likely that they are able to 

meaningfully participate for the 

duration of the proceedings. This, in 

turn, will protect investors and the 

public interest by helping to ensure that 

arbitration cases are resolved based on 

the underlying merits. 

In addition, those parties who do not 

meet the eligibility requirements of the 

proposed rule change still will be able 

to request, once the panel has been 

appointed, that the panel consider other 

factors, including their age or a change 

in their health condition during the 

arbitration proceeding, when scheduling 

hearings and discovery, briefing, and 

motion deadlines. Thus, although these 

proceedings would not be subject to the 

shortened, rule-based deadlines of the 

proposed rule change, the panel may 

determine at a party’s request, to 

expedite the proceedings based on the 

party’s particular circumstances. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

FINRA does not believe that the 

proposed rule change would result in 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. 

FINRA has undertaken an economic 

impact assessment, as set forth below, to 

analyze the regulatory need for the 

proposed rulemaking, its potential 

economic impacts, including 

anticipated benefits and costs, and the 

alternatives FINRA considered in 

assessing how to best meet its regulatory 

objectives. 

Economic Impact Assessment 

1. Regulatory Need 

The proposed rule change would 

address concerns that FINRA has 

received that certain parties who are 

seriously ill or 70 years or older may be 

unable to meaningfully participate in a 

lengthy arbitration. An inability to 

meaningfully participate harms these 

parties if, as a result, the resolution of 

the arbitration does not accurately 

reflect the underlying merits of the case. 

For the parties who qualify, the 

proposed rule change would shorten 

case deadlines and provide arbitrators 

with instruction on how quickly the 

arbitration should be completed. 

2. Economic Baseline 

The economic baseline is the current 

provisions under the Codes that address 

the administration of arbitration 

proceedings and the current program to 

shorten case processing times. The 

proposed rule change is expected to 

affect the parties to cases in the DRS 

forum, their counsel, and FINRA 

arbitrators. 

Under the current program, parties 

who have a serious health condition or 

are at least 65 years of age may request 

that the processing of their arbitration 

be expedited. Since the current program 

is voluntary, requesting parties 

presumably anticipate that the benefits 

from the shortened case processing 

times more than offset any additional 

costs, such as paying for expedited legal 

services. Expedited processing may also 

impose additional costs on the other 

parties and arbitrators associated with 

arbitrations. 

From 2019 through 2023, customers 

requested expedited processing in 

approximately 29 percent of customer 

arbitrations. During this time period, 

10,961 customer arbitrations (where 

customers appeared as claimants) closed 

where DRS had served the statement of 

claim on respondents. Parties requested 

expedited processing in 3,174 of these 

arbitrations. Ninety-nine percent, or 

3,132 of the 3,174 requests, were 

granted. Parties did not request 

expedited processing in the remaining 

7,787 arbitrations.45

Arbitrations in the current program 

closed only slightly faster than 

arbitrations not in the current program. 

The median time for the 3,132 customer 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 105133 

46FINRA finds similar evidence comparing the 

length of customer arbitrations that went through 

the full arbitration process and closed by award 

after a hearing from 2019 to 2023. 

47As noted above, the proposed rule change 

would be more likely than the current program, 

which does not provide for shortened, rule-based 

deadlines for parties or provide arbitrators with 

direction on how quickly the arbitration should be 

completed, to accelerate the proceedings for those 

parties who may not be able to meaningfully 

participate throughout the course of a lengthy 

arbitration. In addition, for those parties who may 

benefit from shortened proceedings but do not meet 

the eligibility requirements of the proposed rule 

change, the proposed rule change would allow the 

parties to request that the panel consider other 

factors, including their age and health, when 

scheduling hearings and discovery, briefing, and 

motion deadlines. Thus, although these proceedings 

would not be subject to the shortened, rule-based 

deadlines of the proposed rule change, the panel 

may determine at a party’s request, to expedite the 

proceedings based on the party’s particular 

circumstances, including developing a serious 

health condition during the arbitration proceeding. 

48FINRA also identified 31 requests for expedited 

processing made by customer claimants where the 

request was based on age but information 

describing the age was not available. Depending on 

the age of the customer, these requests may or may 

not be eligible under the proposed rule change. The 

sample reflects all arbitrations filed in 2023 where 

customer claimants requested expedited processing. 

The sample, therefore, should be representative of 

the customer claimants who make these requests. 

49As a comparison, from a sample of 109 

arbitrations in the current program in 2020 

involving customer claimants who were under the 

age of 70 and not seriously ill, 72 percent (78 of 109 

arbitrations in the current program) took longer 

than 10 months to close. Among the arbitrations in 

the current program that took longer than 10 

months to close, approximately 50 percent took 

longer than 14.6 months to close. As of the date of 

this filing, two arbitrations in the current program 

in 2020 remained open. 

50Such outcomes can include awards and 

settlements insofar as settlements reflect the merits 

of the case. Among the 10,961 customer arbitrations 

that closed from 2019 through 2023, 8,423 

arbitrations (77 percent) resulted in settlements 

reached by the parties. 

51See infra Item II.C.2. 

52 In 2023, with a proposed age cutoff of 75, 

customer claimants in 295 arbitrations (16 percent 

of 1,891 arbitrations where customers appeared as 

claimant) would qualify for accelerated processing. 

53See supra note 15. 

arbitrations in the current program to 

close was approximately 13.7 months. 

This is two months shorter than the 

median time for the 7,829 customer 

arbitrations not in the current program 

to close, which was 15.7 months.46

3. Economic Impacts 

The proposed rule change would 

impact the number of parties who are 

eligible for accelerated processing.47 For 

example, from a sample of 499 requests 

for expedited processing that were 

granted in 2023, 77 percent of the 

requests (385 requests) were granted on 

the basis of serious illness or age 70 or 

over. These parties represent 20 percent 

of customer claimants (385 of 1,891 

arbitrations where customers appeared 

as claimant). The remaining 23 percent 

of requests (114 requests), or six percent 

of customer claimants, were granted 

solely on the basis of age to parties 

between the ages of 65 and 69. Under 

the proposed rule change, these parties 

would no longer qualify for accelerated 

processing.48

FINRA anticipates that the proposed 

rule change would shorten the length of 

arbitrations for parties who request and 

are granted accelerated processing. In 

these arbitrations, arbitrators would be 

required to endeavor to render an award 

within 10 months. From a sample of 

arbitrations in the current program in 

2020 that have since closed, 384 were 

granted on the basis of serious illness or 

age 70 or over. Seventy percent (269 of 

384 arbitrations in the current program) 

took longer than 10 months to close. 

Among the arbitrations in the current 

program that took longer than 10 

months to close, approximately 50 

percent took longer than 15.3 months to 

close.49 As discussed below, the 

magnitude of the benefits and costs 

resulting from the proposed rule change 

would increase as the arbitrations that 

proceed under accelerated processing 

shorten. 

Relative to the baseline, the proposed 

rule change would benefit parties who 

are seriously ill or at least 70 years old 

by shortening case deadlines for their 

arbitrations and providing arbitrators 

with instruction on how quickly the 

arbitration should be completed. This 

would help reduce the length of the 

arbitration and increase the chance that 

qualifying parties can fully participate. 

The ability of these parties to 

meaningfully participate would help 

facilitate outcomes that are more 

consistent with the merits of the case.50

Those parties who, as a result of the 

shorter processing times settle or are 

awarded damages earlier than under the 

current program, may also have a greater 

ability to meet their short-term financial 

needs. 

The proposed rule change, however, 

may also impose additional costs on 

parties and arbitrators to meet the 

shorter, rule-based deadlines. The 

parties who are eligible and request 

accelerated processing would incur 

these costs at their own discretion. The 

types of costs the other parties to the 

proceeding may incur would depend on 

how they manage their resources to 

meet the shortened deadlines. For 

example, these parties may reallocate 

resources from other activities, possibly 

increasing the time required to meet 

other business objectives; or they may 

incur additional costs from adding staff 

or using outside counsel; or do a 

combination of the two. How these 

parties would adjust to meet the 

shortened deadlines may differ 

depending on their business models and 

available resources. The additional costs 

parties incur, however, may be partly 

offset by the gains to efficiency from the 

shorter deadlines and a more focused 

effort on the associated tasks. 

Participants to non-accelerated 

arbitrations may also incur costs 

associated with longer processing times. 

It could be difficult for arbitrators, 

industry parties and their counsel— 

many of whom participate concurrently 

in more than one arbitration—to 

maintain their current timelines for nonaccelerated arbitrations. As a result, case 

processing times of non-accelerated 

arbitrations may lengthen. 

Reducing the length of the arbitration 

may help more parties with serious 

health issues than are helped under the 

current program, though the reduction 

may not be sufficient to help all parties 

with more serious health issues and 

shorter life expectancies. Also, under 

the proposed rule change, parties 

between the ages of 65 and 69 who are 

seriously ill would no longer be able to 

rely on their age to qualify for 

accelerated processing. These parties 

may incur additional costs to certify that 

they have received a medical diagnosis 

and prognosis in order to take advantage 

of accelerated processing. 

Finally, it is not expected that the 

proposed rule change would impose 

costs on those parties who would no 

longer qualify for accelerated processing 

on the basis of either their age or health 

condition. These parties would still be 

able to ask that the panel consider their 

age and health in making scheduling 

decisions and setting deadlines. 

4. Alternatives Considered 

FINRA considered different age 

eligibility cutoffs when developing the 

proposed rule change.51 FINRA is 

concerned that age cutoffs greater than 

70 would deny accelerated processing to 

many parties who are at higher risk of 

becoming seriously ill, experiencing an 

adverse health condition, or not living 

to see the outcome of an arbitration. In 

2023, relative to the proposed age cutoff 

of 70, an age cutoff of 75 would decrease 

the total number of customer claimants 

who would qualify for accelerated 

processing from 20 percent to 16 

percent.52 Alternatively, as noted above, 

lowering the proposed age cutoff from 

70 to 65—the same age cutoff for the 

current program—would increase the 

total number of customer claimants who 

would qualify for accelerated processing 

from 20 percent to 26 percent.53 FINRA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
105134 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 

54See Elizabeth Arias, Jiaquan Xu & Kenneth 

Kochanek, United States Life Tables, 2021, National 

Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 72, No. 12, https://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr72/nvsr72-12.pdf. 

55See supra note 12. 

56One of the 14 commenters, Slater, submitted 

two comment letters. See SR–FINRA–2024–021 

(Form 19b–4, Exhibit 2b) for a list of abbreviations 

assigned to commenters (available on FINRA’s 

website at http://www.finra.org). 

57See Cambridge, Cardozo, Caruso, Cornell, FSI, 

Iannarone, Miami, NASAA, Pace, PIABA, and St. 

John’s. SIFMA stated that the proposed rule change 

is unnecessary because FINRA’s current program 

for expediting arbitrations sufficiently addresses the 

issue. The two remaining commenters, Kolber and 

Slater, did not address the proposed rule change 

specifically but, rather, expressed concerns about 

misconduct by attorneys in FINRA arbitrations. 

58See supra Item II.B.2 (discussing Economic 

Baseline). 

59See Miami, Cardozo. 

60See Cardozo. 

61See PIABA (stating that ‘‘[c]odifying the 

mandates of an accelerated process’’ may make it 

more likely that parties and arbitrators comply with 

an accelerated schedule). 

62See infra Item II.C.2(A) and (B). 

notes that these are estimates of 

eligibility, and that we do not know the 

fraction of those eligible who would 

request accelerated processing if the 

proposed rule change were adopted. 

Even though the data suggests that 

lowering the proposed age cutoff from 

70 to 65 would only affect 

approximately six percent of customer 

claimants, FINRA is concerned that this 

change may reduce the likelihood that 

the proposed rule change would 

materially shorten the length of the 

proceedings for those parties who may 

be less likely to be able to participate for 

the duration of a lengthy arbitration. 

FINRA is also concerned that 

participation by arbitrators, industry 

parties and their counsel in more than 

one arbitration, including an arbitration 

that is accelerated under the proposed 

rule change may affect parties in other 

arbitrations in the DRS forum in the 

form of longer processing times. 

FINRA understands that the average 

likelihood of becoming unable to 

meaningfully participate in an 

arbitration may differ among 

populations and that these differences 

can persist after the age of 65.54 This 

suggests that lowering the proposed age 

cutoff cannot fully equalize the ability 

of individuals in all populations to 

participate in the forum. However, 

populations with higher likelihoods of 

serious illness or adverse health 

conditions may experience additional 

benefits from the eligibility 

requirements based on health. As noted 

above, a party younger than 70 would 

still be able to request accelerated 

processing if they are suffering from a 

serious health condition. 

Finally, FINRA also considered 

establishing different deadlines for 

parties (e.g., requiring the parties to 

complete the ranked arbitrator lists in 

20 days and not the proposed 10 days; 

and requiring parties to respond to 

Document Production Lists in 20 days 

and not the proposed 35 days). When 

establishing the proposed deadlines, 

FINRA considered the potential burden 

on arbitrators and parties relative to 

their importance on the length of 

arbitration proceedings to close. FINRA 

believes that the deadlines as proposed 

would be manageable and only impose 

a burden on arbitrators and parties to 

the extent that the deadlines would help 

result in meaningfully shortened 

processing times. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

FINRA published the proposed rule 

change for comment in Regulatory 

Notice 22–09.55 FINRA received 15 

comment letters from 14 commenters in 

response to the Notice.56 A copy of the 

Notice is available on FINRA’s website 

at http://www.finra.org. A list of 

comment letters received in response to 

the Notice is available on FINRA’s 

website. Copies of the comment letters 

received in response to the Notice are 

available on FINRA’s website. 

Eleven commenters supported 

FINRA’s efforts to accelerate arbitration 

proceedings for those parties who may 

not be able to meaningfully participate 

in lengthy proceedings but suggested 

modifications.57 A summary of the 

comments and FINRA’s responses are 

discussed below. 

1. Comments Addressing the Need for 

the Proposed Rule Change 

In its response to the Notice, SIFMA 

supported the intent behind the 

proposed rule change—‘‘to ensure that 

parties to a FINRA arbitration are able 

to participate meaningfully in their 

proceedings and obtain a fair 

outcome’’—but questioned whether the 

proposed rule change is necessary given 

the existence of the current program. 

FINRA disagrees that the proposed rule 

change is unnecessary. The current 

program has reduced the median time 

that it takes for customer arbitrations to 

close by just two months.58

FINRA understands that any 

shortening in the length of an arbitration 

can be helpful to a party who is elderly 

or suffering from a serious health 

condition. However, FINRA believes 

that the proposed rule change has the 

potential to shorten the time that it takes 

for arbitrations to close to 

approximately 10 months, thereby 

shortening the median closing time by 

approximately an additional three 

months. As a number of commenters 

noted, the additional time savings 

contemplated by the proposed rule 

change could be critical for parties who 

are elderly or suffering from a serious 

health condition and who, therefore, 

may be unable to meaningfully 

participate in a lengthy arbitration.59 As 

Miami stated, ‘‘[t]he critical months 

saved under the proposal could mean 

the difference in’’ whether an elderly or 

sick party is able to meaningfully 

participate in the proceedings, ‘‘whether 

by testifying, consulting with their 

attorneys, or making decisions about 

settlement offers.’’ Cardozo noted the 

‘‘grave’’ consequences that some elderly 

or seriously ill parties face without 

accelerated processing. Some of these 

parties die before the arbitration is 

completed, and others, who are 

diagnosed with a memory-impairing 

disease like Alzheimer’s, may initially 

be able to assist in the preparation of 

their case but then ‘‘enter into a steep 

decline to a point where they can no 

longer testify on their own behalf.’’ 60

According to Cardozo, ‘‘[m]moving 

quickly in such a case is critical.’’ 

FINRA believes that, by establishing 

rule-based deadlines for the parties and 

codifying the expectation that 

arbitrators endeavor to render an award 

within 10 months, the proposed rule 

change would be more likely than the 

current program to ensure that cases 

occur on an accelerated schedule.61

SIFMA suggests that, even without 

the proposed rule change, FINRA could 

encourage arbitrators to endeavor to 

render awards in accelerated 

proceedings within a period of 10 

months. FINRA agrees that arbitrator 

training is important, and, as noted 

above, if the Commission approves the 

proposed rule change, FINRA would 

provide training and guidance to 

arbitrators on accelerated processing, 

which would include training on 

evaluating requests to extend the 

proposed shortened deadlines. 

2. Comments Addressing Which Parties 

Should Be Eligible for Accelerated 

Processing 

As discussed below, those 

commenters who addressed the issue of 

which parties should be eligible for 

accelerated processing almost uniformly 

supported allowing parties to qualify 

based on either their age or their health 

condition.62 The principal area of 

disagreement among the commenters 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 105135 

63See infra Item II.C.2(A). 

64See infra Item II.C.2(C). 

65Compare Cardozo, Caruso, Cornell, FSI, 

Iannarone, Miami, NASAA, Pace, PIABA, SIFMA, 

and St. John’s (all supporting allowing parties to 

qualify for accelerated processing based solely on 

age) with Cambridge (recommending that FINRA 

eliminate eligibility based solely on age). SIFMA 

generally supported allowing parties to request 

accelerated processing based on age but suggested 

that FINRA should require parties to produce proof 

of their age. FINRA discusses all of the comments 

addressing the question of what kind of proof 

should be required to qualify for accelerated 

processing below. See infra Item II.C.3(A). 

66See supra note 12. 

67See FSI, Miami, SIFMA. 

68See Cardozo, Caruso, Cornell, Iannarone, Pace, 

PIABA. 

69See Caruso, Iannarone, Pace, PIABA. 

70See Cardozo, Cornell, Iannarone, Pace, PIABA. 

71See Cardozo. 

72See supra Item II.A.1(II)(A)(1) (discussing 

Eligibility Based on Age) and Item II.B.4 (discussing 

Alternatives Considered). 

73See supra Item II.A.1(II)(A)(1). 

74See Cambridge, Cardozo, Caruso, Cornell, FSI, 

Iannarone, Miami, NASAA, Pace, PIABA, SIFMA, 

and St. John’s. Although they generally supported 

allowing parties to qualify for accelerated 

processing based on their health condition, some of 

these commenters suggested that the proposed rule 

change should require parties to produce additional 

proof of their health condition. See Cambridge, 

SIFMA. FINRA discusses these comments on the 

issue of what proof should be required to establish 

eligibility based on health condition below. See 

infra Item II.C. 75See Iannarone, St. John’s. 

was the appropriate age at which a party 

should become eligible for accelerated 

processing.63 Further, some commenters 

suggested that FINRA should take into 

consideration other factors in addition 

to age and health condition when 

deciding whether a party should qualify 

for accelerated processing.64

(A) Comments Addressing Eligibility 

Based on Age 

All but one of the commenters who 

addressed the issue supported allowing 

parties to qualify for accelerated 

processing based solely on age.65 The 

only exception is Cambridge. 

Specifically, Cambridge questioned the 

need for parties who are otherwise 

healthy to qualify for accelerated 

processing based solely on age. 

Cambridge stated that accelerated 

processing should be available only 

when a party is suffering from an 

eligible health condition. 

FINRA disagrees with Cambridge. 

Even if they are otherwise healthy at the 

outset of the arbitration, elderly parties 

may be more likely because of their age 

to become seriously ill or die during the 

arbitration, in which case they would be 

unable to meaningfully participate for 

the duration of the proceedings. For this 

reason, FINRA believes it is appropriate 

that the proposed rule change would 

allow parties to qualify for accelerated 

processing based solely on age. 

The remaining commenters, other 

than Cambridge, focused principally on 

the question of what the appropriate age 

cutoff should be for a party to qualify for 

accelerated processing. In the Notice, 

FINRA proposed an age cutoff of 75 

years and requested comment on 

whether 75 was the appropriate age at 

which parties should be able to request 

that the proceedings be accelerated.66 In 

response, three commenters supported 

the proposed age cutoff of 75.67 St. 

John’s recommended lowering the age 

cutoff to 70. Six commenters urged 

FINRA to lower the age cutoff to 65.68

As noted above, those commenters who 

suggested lowering the age cutoff from 

75 to either 70 or 65 relied on some or 

all of the following three justifications 

for their recommendation: (1) 65 is the 

age that is commonly used in other 

statutes and rules relating to the 

protection of seniors; 69 (2) lowering the 

age cutoff to below 75 would account 

for different life expectancies across 

different groups; 70 and (3) customer 

claimants who are 65 years of age and 

older are more likely to be facing 

economic hardship because they may 

not have ongoing income from 

employment.71

After considering the comments, 

FINRA has determined to propose an 

age cutoff to qualify for accelerated 

processing of 70. As discussed in detail 

above, an age cutoff of 70 would make 

accelerated processing available to more 

parties who are at a higher risk of 

becoming seriously ill or experiencing 

an eligible health condition during the 

course of an arbitration, or potentially 

not living to see the outcome of the 

arbitration proceeding.72 However, as 

noted above, if the Commission 

approves the proposed rule change, 

FINRA would monitor the new program 

to determine if adjustments to the age 

cutoff for qualification for accelerated 

processing are warranted.73

(B) Comments Addressing Eligibility 

Based on Health Condition 

Those commenters who addressed the 

issue of which parties should be eligible 

for accelerated processing unanimously 

supported allowing parties to qualify 

based on their health condition.74

However, FSI requested further 

guidance regarding the kinds of health 

conditions that would support a request 

for accelerated processing. Cornell 

requested that FINRA reconsider the 

requirement in proposed Rules 

12808(a)(1)(B) and 13808(a)(1)(B) that, 

in order to qualify for accelerated 

processing based on their health 

condition, a party must certify that they 

have a ‘‘reasonable belief’’ that 

accelerated processing is necessary. In 

explaining its objection to that standard, 

Cornell expressed the concern that 

parties could be subject to sanctions if 

they and the Director—who, according 

to Cornell, will have ‘‘the authority of 

determining whether the applicants’ 

beliefs are reasonable’’—disagree as to 

‘‘what conditions warrant an accelerated 

hearing.’’ 

Given the breadth of potential 

diagnoses and prognoses that could 

result in parties reasonably believing 

that they would be prejudiced without 

accelerated processing, FINRA does not 

believe it would be helpful to provide 

examples of eligible health conditions. 

In addition, FINRA is concerned that 

doing so could discourage parties with 

medical diagnoses and prognoses that 

fall outside of the examples from 

making a legitimate request for 

accelerated processing. 

FINRA also believes that the 

‘‘reasonable belief’’ standard is 

appropriate. As discussed above, when 

assessing eligibility for accelerated 

processing under proposed Rules 

12808(b)(1) and 13808(b)(1), the 

Director would make an objective 

determination as to whether the 

requesting party has submitted the 

required certification regarding an 

eligible health condition. This 

determination would not require any 

assessment by the Director regarding the 

reasonableness of the requesting party’s 

belief that accelerated processing is 

necessary. FINRA believes that these 

concerns are unfounded. 

(C) Comments Proposing Additional 

Categories of Eligible Parties 

Although they supported making 

accelerated processing available to 

parties based on their age or health 

condition, two commenters suggested 

that FINRA should allow parties to 

request accelerated treatment based on 

other factors.75 Specifically, St. John’s 

recommended that parties should be 

able to qualify for accelerated 

processing based on ‘‘need.’’ Under the 

approach proposed by St. John’s, a 

party’s eligibility for accelerated 

processing would be determined based 

on a consideration of their ‘‘full 

circumstances,’’ including their medical 

status, socioeconomic status, and other 

needs, such as caregiver responsibilities. 

In addition, both St. John’s and 

Iannarone suggested that parties should 

qualify for accelerated processing if they 

are healthy but have a spouse or 

immediate family member who is 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
105136 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 

76See Cambridge, SIFMA. 

77See FSI, SIFMA. 

78 In addition, FINRA notes there are increasing 

concerns with customers’ identities being used for 

fraudulent purposes in the securities industry. See, 

e.g., Regulatory Notice 20–13 (May 2020) 

(reminding firms to be aware of fraud during the 

pandemic); Regulatory Notice 20–32 (September 

2020) (reminding firms to be aware of fraudulent 

options trading in connection with potential 

account takeovers and new account fraud); 

Regulatory Notice 21–14 (March 2021) (alerting 

firms to recent increase in automated clearing house 

‘‘Instant Funds’’ abuse); Regulatory Notice 21–18 

(May 2021) (sharing practices firms use to protect 

customers from online account takeover attempts); 

and Regulatory Notice 22–21 (October 2022) 

(alerting firms to recent trend in fraudulent 

transfers of accounts through the Automated 

Customer Account Transfer Service). 

79See FINRA Rules 12409 and 13413. The panel 

has the authority to interpret and determine the 

applicability of all provisions under the Codes. 

80See Cambridge, SIFMA. 

81See Miami, PIABA. 

82See Miami, PIABA. 

83See proposed Rules 12808(a)(2) and 

13808(a)(2). 

84See FSI, SIFMA. 

suffering from a qualifying health 

condition. 

FINRA understands that there are 

some parties who would benefit if their 

arbitration were accelerated but who 

would not qualify for accelerated 

processing under the proposed rule 

change. However, FINRA is concerned 

that the needs-based approach suggested 

by St. John’s is too vague and subjective 

to be workable. Although FINRA 

understands that parties with ill spouses 

or immediate family members might 

benefit if—according to St. John’s, they 

were able to ‘‘spend less time and 

money on the arbitration process,’’— 

there is no evidence that these parties 

would be unable to meaningfully 

participate in arbitration proceedings 

absent accelerated processing. Finally, 

FINRA believes it is unnecessary to 

expand the categories of eligible parties 

as suggested by the commenters because 

the proposed rule change provides those 

parties who do not meet the eligibility 

requirements of the proposed rule 

change with an alternative route to seek 

to accelerate the proceedings. 

Specifically, as discussed above, 

proposed Rules 12808(a)(3) and 

13808(a)(3) would allow parties who do 

not meet the eligibility requirements of 

the proposed rule change to request, 

once the panel has been appointed, that 

the panel consider other factors, 

including their age or a change in their 

health condition during the arbitration 

proceeding, when scheduling hearings 

and discovery, briefing, and motion 

deadlines. Thus, although the shortened 

deadlines in proposed Rules 12808(b) 

and 13808(b) would not apply to these 

parties, they would be able to ask the 

arbitration panel to accelerate their 

proceedings based on a consideration of 

their particular circumstances, 

including developing a serious health 

condition after the panel is appointed. 

3. Comments Addressing the Proof 

Required To Qualify for Accelerated 

Processing 

As noted above, although almost all of 

the commenters supported allowing 

parties to qualify for accelerated 

processing based on their age or their 

health conditions, two of those 

commenters suggested that, in order to 

minimize the potential for abuse of the 

process, FINRA should require parties 

to produce proof of their age or health 

condition.76 To further deter parties 

from falsely claiming they are eligible 

for accelerated processing, two 

commenters suggested that existing 

sanctions provisions in the Codes 

should be expanded.77 FINRA disagrees 

with these commenters, as discussed 

below. 

(A) Comments Addressing Proof of Age 

SIFMA suggested that parties 

requesting accelerated processing on the 

basis of age should be required to prove 

they are at least 70 years old by 

producing ‘‘a driver’s license, passport, 

birth certificate, or other similar official 

record.’’ However, FINRA believes that 

requiring proof of age is unnecessary. 

Just as there is no evidence that parties 

have falsely claimed to be suffering from 

a serious health condition, FINRA has 

no evidence that parties have falsified 

their age to qualify for the current 

program. Nor is there any reason to 

believe that parties are more likely to 

falsify their age under the proposed rule 

change, particularly when such conduct 

could result in potential sanctions 

under existing FINRA Rules 12212 and 

13212. FINRA is also concerned that 

requiring proof of age under the 

proposed rule change could discourage 

some parties from making legitimate 

requests for accelerated processing as 

they may view this as an unnecessary 

intrusion into their personal 

information.78 Further, in the unlikely 

event that a genuine dispute arises as to 

whether a party qualifies for accelerated 

processing on the basis of age, the 

arbitration panel could require that the 

party provide proof of age to determine 

the applicability of the proposed rule 

change.79

(B) Comments Addressing Proof of a 

Party’s Health Condition 

To minimize the risk that parties will 

falsely certify that they are suffering 

from an eligible health condition, two 

commenters suggested that parties 

should be required to provide additional 

proof of their health condition, for 

example, by providing a certification 

from a physician.80 As discussed above, 

FINRA believes that the proposed 

certification requirement and the threat 

of potential sanctions would be 

sufficient to protect against abuse of the 

process while, at the same time, 

minimizing unnecessary intrusions into 

private medical information. 

Some commenters also expressed the 

concern that parties who request 

accelerated processing on the basis of an 

eligible health condition could be 

subject to discovery requests for the 

production of medical records or other 

private information about their health 

condition.81 These commenters stated 

that in addition to raising privacy 

concerns, such discovery requests could 

deter parties from making valid requests 

for accelerated processing and also 

unnecessarily delay the proceedings.82

FINRA agrees with these concerns. As a 

result, the proposed rule change would 

make clear that a party does not open 

the door to discovery into their health 

condition merely by requesting 

accelerated processing.83

To further protect a party’s privacy, 

Cardozo requested that the proposed 

rule change require that the certification 

be submitted only to FINRA staff and 

not shared with other parties or the 

arbitrators. However, FINRA believes 

that such a requirement is unnecessary 

because the certification required under 

the proposed rule change would not 

contain any details regarding the party’s 

medical condition or other private 

health information. 

(C) Comments Addressing Sanctions 

To provide further protection against 

abuse of the process, two commenters 

suggested that the existing sanctions 

provisions in the Codes should be 

expanded.84 More specifically, FSI 

proposed that arbitrators should be able 

to remove a matter from the accelerated 

processing track, and SIFMA proposed 

that matters should be subject to 

dismissal as a sanction if a party falsely 

claims to be eligible for accelerated 

treatment. However, existing FINRA 

Rules 12212(a) and 13212(a) already 

authorize arbitrators to impose a wide 

range of sanctions, including, assessing 

monetary penalties payable to one or 

more parties; precluding a party from 

presenting evidence; making an adverse 

inference against a party; assessing 

postponement or forum fees; and 

assessing attorneys’ fees, costs and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 105137 

85See Miami, SIFMA. 86 In addition, Miami stated that ‘‘existing 

provisions of the Code provide sufficient flexibility 

if the shortened deadlines could not be met in a 

particular case.’’ 87See supra Item II.B.3 (discussing Economic 

Impacts). 

88See supra Item II.A.1(II)(C)(2). 

89See Cambridge, FSI, SIFMA. 

90Cambridge also suggested that, instead of 

shortening the deadlines that apply to the parties, 

FINRA should consider establishing concurrent 

deadlines. For example, Cambridge proposed that 

the parties could be working on ranking potential 

arbitrators at the same time that the respondent is 

preparing the answer to the statement of claim. 

However, FINRA does not believe it would be 

appropriate to require the claimant to rank 

arbitrators before they are provided with an 

opportunity to review the respondent’s answer and 

any counterclaims and crossclaims. 

91See supra Item II.A.1(II)(C)(3). For this same 

reason, FINRA also does not believe it is necessary, 

as suggested by Cardozo, that the proposed rule 

change provide parties with the option to ‘‘change 

their minds’’ and have their cases returned to a 

regular schedule. If, as Cardozo suggests, the 

shortened deadlines become too ‘‘challenging’’ for 

a party, existing FINRA rules would permit them 

to request that the deadlines be modified. 

92Until the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 

U.S. 220 (1987), the courts would not enforce 

predispute arbitration agreements relating to federal 

securities law claims. In addition, until its 

rescission in 1987, Rule 15c2–2(a) under the Act 

provided that: ‘‘It shall be a fraudulent, 

manipulative or deceptive act or practice for a 

broker or dealer to enter into an agreement with any 

public customer which purports to bind the 

customer to the arbitration of future disputes 

between them arising under the federal securities 

laws, or to have in effect such an agreement, 

pursuant to which it effects transactions with or for 

a customer.’’ As a result of McMahon and the 

rescission of Rule 15c2–2(a), firms can compel 

arbitration of customer claims through inclusion of 

predispute arbitration provisions in their 

agreements with customers. When member firms 

use mandatory arbitration clauses, FINRA rules 

establish minimum disclosure requirements 

regarding their use to help ensure customers 

understand these clauses, and to protect customers’ 

rights under FINRA rules. See FINRA Rule 2268. 

See also Regulatory Notice 21–16 (April 2021) 

(reminding firms about requirements when using 

predispute arbitration agreements for customer 

accounts). 

93Cf. FINRA Rule 8310 (allowing FINRA to 

impose sanctions on member firms and persons 

associated with member firms). 

expenses. FINRA believes these rules 

are broad enough and provide 

arbitrators with sufficient flexibility to 

address any abuse of accelerated 

processing. 

4. Comments Addressing the Proposed 

Shortened Deadlines for Parties and 

Guidance to Arbitrators 

(A) Comments Addressing the Proposed 

10-Month Timeframe for Arbitrators To 

Endeavor To Render an Award 

Two commenters addressed the 

proposed 10-month timeframe within 

which arbitrators should endeavor to 

render awards in accelerated 

arbitrations.85 Miami supported the 

proposed rule change and, based on its 

experience representing parties in 

FINRA arbitrations, stated that 

‘‘arbitrators appear equipped to meet 

FINRA’s proposed guidance to render 

an award within 10 months or less.’’ 86

SIFMA did not object to the proposed 

10-month timeframe per se but, rather, 

noted that it may not be possible or 

appropriate to close all accelerated cases 

within 10 months. For example, SIFMA 

noted that large, complex cases may 

involve voluminous discovery. 

For the reasons discussed above, 

FINRA believes that 10 months is the 

appropriate timeframe within which 

arbitrators should endeavor to render 

awards in accelerated arbitrations.87 In 

addition, however, FINRA agrees that 

there are some cases that may qualify for 

accelerated processing but which cannot 

reasonably be completed within 10 

months because these cases are complex 

or involve voluminous discovery. As to 

these matters, FINRA believes that the 

proposed rule change would provide the 

arbitrators with sufficient flexibility to 

accommodate the particular 

circumstances of each case. As 

discussed above, the proposed rule 

change would establish a benchmark 

but does not mandate that all cases be 

completed within 10 months.88

(B) Comments Addressing the Shortened 

Deadlines for Parties 

As discussed above, in addition to 

establishing a 10-month timeframe 

within which arbitrators should 

endeavor to render an award in 

accelerated cases, proposed Rules 

12808(b)(2)(D) and 13808(b)(2)(D) 

would accelerate the proceedings by 

establishing shortened deadlines for the 

parties. Three commenters expressed 

concerns regarding some or all of these 

proposed shortened deadlines.89

Cambridge recommended against 

including any deadlines in the proposed 

rule change ‘‘to allow for flexibility in 

each situation.’’ It also objected to all of 

the proposed shortened deadlines for 

filing answers, returning the ranked 

arbitrator lists, and producing discovery 

as allegedly too short and unfair to 

respondents.90 SIFMA generally 

supported the proposed deadline for 

filing answers ‘‘provided that the parties 

are free to grant extensions upon 

request,’’ but it stated that the proposed 

deadlines for returning the ranked 

arbitrator lists and discovery might be 

difficult or impossible to meet in some 

cases. FSI took issue only with the 

proposed shortened discovery 

deadlines, which FSI claimed were 

unrealistic and would result in requests 

for extensions of time ‘‘as a matter of 

course.’’ 

FINRA disagrees with Cambridge’s 

suggestion to eliminate all shortened 

deadlines from the proposed rule 

change. To meaningfully reduce case 

processing times for those parties who 

may be unable to fully participate in 

lengthy arbitration proceedings—a goal 

that the current program has been 

unable to achieve—FINRA believes it is 

necessary and appropriate to establish 

rule-based shortened deadlines. As to 

the other concerns raised by 

commenters regarding specific 

deadlines, FINRA understands that the 

proposed shortened deadlines may not 

be reasonable in some cases, for 

example, if the case is complex or 

involves voluminous discovery. 

However, as discussed above, FINRA 

believes that the existing provisions of 

the Codes provide the parties and 

arbitrators with sufficient flexibility to 

modify the proposed shortened 

deadlines when necessary.91 Further, as 

noted above, if the Commission 

approves the proposed rule change, 

FINRA would provide training and 

guidance to arbitrators on accelerated 

processing, which would include 

training on evaluating requests to 

extend the proposed shortened 

deadlines. 

5. Other Comments 

In response to the Notice, NASAA 

criticized FINRA member firms for often 

requiring customers to enter into 

agreements to arbitrate disputes 

regarding services provided to such 

customers. Kolber suggested that the 

Codes should be amended to provide for 

sanctioning attorneys for engaging in 

delay tactics in arbitration. St. John’s 

recommended raising the threshold for 

simplified arbitration from $50,000 to 

$100,000. Iannarone suggested that 

FINRA help ensure that all customer 

claimants have access to counsel. 

All of these comments are beyond the 

scope of the proposed rule change. 

However, with respect to NASAA’s 

comment, FINRA notes that its rules do 

not require customers to enter into 

agreements to arbitrate disputes with 

member firms, nor do FINRA rules 

preclude customers from pursuing relief 

in state or federal courts. The Supreme 

Court has held that predispute 

arbitration agreements are enforceable 

as to claims brought under the Act.92

With respect to Kolber’s comment, 

FINRA notes that it does not have direct 

authority to investigate or discipline 

representative misconduct in the DRS 

forum.93 Currently, if an attorney is 

allegedly engaging in misconduct in the 

DRS forum, FINRA may make a referral 

to the attorney’s disciplinary agency, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
105138 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 247 / Thursday, December 26, 2024 / Notices 

94See Find An Attorney, https://www.finra.org/ 

arbitration-mediation/about/find-attorney. 

95 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(4). 

5Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72763 

(Aug. 5, 2014), 79 FR 46886 (Aug. 11, 2014) (SR– 

DTC–2014–08). 

6Available at www.dtcc.com/∼/media/Files/ 

Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/eligibility/ 

operational-arrangements.pdf. 

7Each capitalized term not otherwise defined 

herein has its respective meaning as set forth the 

Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate of DTC 

(the ‘‘Rules’’) available at www.dtcc.com/legal/ 

rules-and-procedures. 

which has processes to respond to 

misconduct of attorneys subject to its 

jurisdiction. 

With respect to St. John’s comment, 

FINRA notes that any increase to the 

$50,000 threshold for simplified 

arbitrations would require a separate 

proposed rule change as the focus of 

this proposed rule change is on 

accelerating the processing of arbitration 

proceedings for parties who qualify 

based on their age or health condition 

rather than claim size. 

Finally, with respect to Iannarone’s 

comment, FINRA notes that its website 

offers several resources to help parties 

find an attorney.94

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Within 45 days of the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register or within such longer period (i) 

as the Commission may designate up to 

90 days of such date if it finds such 

longer period to be appropriate and 

publishes its reasons for so finding or 

(ii) as to which the self-regulatory 

organization consents, the Commission 

will: 

(A) by order approve or disapprove 

such proposed rule change, or 

(B) institute proceedings to determine 

whether the proposed rule change 

should be disapproved. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

FINRA–2024–021 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to file 

number SR–FINRA–2024–021. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing 

also will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of 

FINRA. Do not include personal 

identifiable information in submissions; 

you should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. We may redact in part or 

withhold entirely from publication 

submitted material that is obscene or 

subject to copyright protection. All 

submissions should refer to file number 

SR–FINRA–2024–021 and should be 

submitted on or before January 16, 2025. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.95

J. Matthew DeLesDernier, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30680 Filed 12–23–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–101964; File No. SR–DTC– 

2024–015] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The 

Depository Trust Company; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

Proposed Rule Change to DTC’s New 

Issue Information Dissemination 

Service To Unwind a Prior Rule Filing 

and Provide a More Accurate 

Description of the Service 

December 18, 2024. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2

notice is hereby given that on December 

12, 2024, The Depository Trust 

Company ‘‘DTC’’) filed with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II and III 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the clearing agency. DTC filed the 

proposed rule change pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 

19b–4(f)(4) thereunder.4 The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Terms of Substance of the Proposed 

Rule Change 

The proposed rule change will (i) 

correct DTC’s rule filing record by 

unwinding a prior rule filing (‘‘2014 

Filing’’) 5 regarding DTC’s New Issue 

Information Dissemination Service 

(‘‘NIIDS’’) and (ii) update the 

description of NIIDS in the DTC 

Operational Arrangements (Necessary 

for Securities to Become and Remain 

Eligible for DTC Service) (‘‘OA’’) 6 to 

more clearly describe NIIDS, as 

described in greater detail below.7

II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

clearing agency included statements 

concerning the purpose of and basis for 

the proposed rule change and discussed 

any comments it received on the 

proposed rule change. The text of these 

statements may be examined at the 

places specified in Item IV below. The 

clearing agency has prepared 

summaries, set forth in sections A, B, 

and C below, of the most significant 

aspects of such statements. 

(A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the 

Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule Change 

1. Purpose 

The proposed rule change will (i) 

correct DTC’s rule filing record by 

unwinding the 2014 Filing regarding 

DTC’s NIIDS and (ii) update the 

description of NIIDS in the OA to more 

clearly describe NIIDS. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1