Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices 32867

1Rule 17a–8 provides an exemption from section

17(a) of the Act for certain reorganizations among

registered investment companies that may be

affiliated persons, or affiliated persons of an

affiliated person, solely by reason of having a

common investment adviser, common directors,

and/or common officers.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Investment Management, pursuant to

delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16069 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Rel. No. IC–22028; 811–5493]

Nuveen New York Municipal Income

Fund, Inc.; Notice of Application

June 19, 1996.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of Application for

Deregistration under the Investment

Company Act of 1940 (the ‘‘Act’’).

APPLICANT: Nuveen New York Municipal

Income Fund, Inc.

RELEVANT ACT SECTIONS: Order requested

under section 8(f).

FILING DATES: The application was filed

on May 17, 1996.

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION: Application

requests on order declaring that it has

ceased to be an investment company.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An

order granting the application will be

issued unless the SEC orders a hearing.

Interested persons may request a

hearing by writing to the SEC’s

Secretary and serving applicants with a

copy of the request, personally or by

mail. Hearing requests should be

received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on July

15, 1996, and should be accompanied

by proof of service on applicants, in the

form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a

certificate of service. Hearing requests

should state the nature of the writer’s

interest, the reason for the request, and

the issues contested. Persons may

request notification of a hearing by

writing to the SEC’s Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, SEC, 450 5th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549.

Applicant, 333 West Wacker Drive,

Chicago, Illinois 60606.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David W. Grim, Staff Attorney, at (202)

942–0571, or Robert A. Robertson,

Branch Chief, at (202) 942–0564

(Division of Investment Management,

Office of Investment Company

Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following is a summary of the

application. The complete application

may be obtained for a fee at the SEC’s

Public Reference Branch.

Applicant’s Representations

1. Applicant is a registered closed-end

management investment company

organized as a Minnesota corporation.

On March 4, 1988, applicant filed a

Notification of Registration on Form N–

8A pursuant to section 8(a) of the Act

and a registration statement on Form N–

1A under section 8(b) of the Act and

under the Securities Act of 1933. The

registration statement became effective

on April 19, 1988, and the initial public

offering commenced soon thereafter.

2. On July 26, 1995, applicant’s board

of directors unanimously approved the

Agreement and Plan of Reorganization

and Liquidation (the ‘‘Agreement’’),

under which substantially all of the

assets of applicant would be transferred

to Nuveen New York Municipal Value

Fund, Inc. (the ‘‘Acquiring Fund’’), a

Minnesota corporation registered under

the Act as a closed-end management

investment company, in exchange for

shares of the Acquiring Fund. Following

receipt of the shares of the Acquiring

Fund, applicant would distribute those

shares to its shareholders in complete

liquidation of applicant. In accordance

with rule 17a–8 under the Act,1

applicant’s board of directors

determined that the proposed

reorganization was in the best interest of

applicant and that the interests of the

existing shareholders of applicant

would not be diluted as a result of the

proposed reorganization.

3. The proposed reorganization was

approved by applicant’s shareholders at

the annual shareholder meeting on

November 16, 1995.

4. Pursuant to the Agreement, on

January 8, 1996, applicant transferred

substantially all of its assets to the

Acquiring Fund. In exchange for

applicant’s assets, the Acquiring Fund

transferred the number of Acquiring

Fund shares having an aggregate net

asset value equal to the value of

applicant’s net assets to applicant and

assumed substantially all of applicant’s

liabilities. Following this exchange,

applicant distributed the shares of the

Acquiring Fund received in connection

with the reorganization to its

shareholders on a pro rata basis (the

‘‘Reorganization’’). On the date of

Reorganization, applicant had 2,521,957

shares of beneficial interest outstanding,

having an aggregate net asset value of

$28,973,266.50 and a net asset value per

share of $11.49.

5. Applicant and the Acquiring Fund

together have incurred, in the aggregate,

expenses of $139,521 in connection

with the Reorganization. The aggregate

expenses include legal fees, audit fees

and expenses, printing expenses,

mailing expenses, proxy solicitation

expenses, and filing fees. The expenses

resulting from the Reorganization were

allocated between applicant and the

Acquiring Fund based upon estimated

savings to each as a result of expected

reduced operating expenses following

the Reorganization. Estimated expenses

relating to the Reorganization were

accrued prior to the effective time of the

Reorganization, with the applicant

paying a total of $75,444 and the

Acquiring Fund paying a total of

$64,077.

6. Applicant has retained cash to pay

certain liabilities accrued in connection

with the Reorganization. As of May 1,

1996, the amount of such cash was

$33,582.90.

7. As of the date of the application,

applicant had no shareholders.

Applicant is not a party to any litigation

or administrative proceeding. Applicant

is neither engaged nor proposes to

engage in any business activities other

than those necessary for the winding-up

of its affairs.

8. Applicant intends to file a

certificate of dissolution in accordance

with the law of the State of Minnesota.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Investment Management, pursuant to

delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16068 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw from Listing and

Registration; (Struthers Industries,

Inc., Common Stock, $.10 par Value)

File No. 1–10942

June 19, 1996.

Struthers Industries, Inc.

(‘‘Company’’) has filed an application

with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant

to Section 12(d) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’) and Rule

12d2–2(d) promulgated thereunder, to

withdraw the above specified security

(‘‘Security’’) from listing and

registration on the American Stock

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Amex’’).

The reasons alleged in the application

for withdrawing the Security from

listing and registration include the

following:

According to the Company, on March

27, 1996, the Company received a letter

from the Exchange stating that the

Exchange was considering delisting the

securities of Struthers because the
32868 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Notices

1See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36996

(March 20, 1996), 61 FR 13907.

2Exceptions to this policy which have been

approved by a Floor Procedure Committee are

contained in Exchange Regulatory Circular RG95–

64, which concerns the trading activities of joint

account participants in the Standard & Poor’s

(‘‘S&P’’) 100 (‘‘OEX’’) and S&P 500 (‘‘SPX’’) index

option classes. See also Securities Exchange Act

Release No. 36977 (March 15, 1996) (order

approving File No. SR–CBOE–95–65) (approving

regulatory circular which provides that a joint

account trading in equity options may be

represented simultaneously in a trading crowd by

participants trading in person) (‘‘Joint Account

Circular’’).

Exchange believed that the Company’s

had fallen below certain of the

Exchange’s continued listing guidelines.

The Company’s responded to the letter

with two detailed submissions to the

Exchange dated May 9, 1996 and May

30, 1996. These submissions addressed

the concerns raised by the Exchange in

the letter as well as the concern raised

at meetings held between officials of the

Company and the Exchange on April 16,

1996 and May 14, 1996.

On June 4, 1996, the Company

received as a letter from the Exchange

stating that the Exchange had made a

determination to delist the Company’s

Security.

The Company has informed the

Exchange that it is the position of the

Company that throughout the process

initiated by the Exchange on March 27,

1996, the Company has fully cooperated

with the Exchange staff and has

provided to the staff extensive

submissions which the Company

believes make clear that the Company

has complied with the Exchange’s

continued listing guidelines. The

Company and the Exchange, however,

have been unable to resolve their

difference on this issue. The Company

has informed the Exchange, therefore,

that it is the Company’s position that in

view of the impasse between the

Exchange and the Company, and in

view of the large expenditures of money

and management time that would be

required before a final resolution of the

matters at issue could be obtained, it is

in the best interests of both the

Company and its shareholders that

matters be settled by the removal of the

Company’s Security from listing on the

Exchange.

The Company has been informed by

the Exchange that it is also the position

of the Exchange that it would be in the

best interests of the Exchange and the

investing public to settle matters with

the Company as provided in this

application.

Accordingly, the Exchange and the

Company have agreed to settle matters

between them by the Company making

this application to remove its Security

from listing on the Exchange. In

accordance therewith, the Company and

the Exchange have agreed that,

coincident with the approval of this

application by the Commission, the

Exchange will withdraw its letter of

June 4, 1996.

For purposes of Section 1011 of the

Exchange’s Listed Company Guide, the

Exchange and the Company have agreed

that the Exchange staff and the

Company management have not been

able to agree concerning the application

of certain continued listing guidelines to

the Company, and that it is unlikely that

they will be able to reach agreement on

this matter.

Any interested person may, on or

before July 11, 1996, submit by letter to

the Secretary of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts

bearing upon whether the application

has been made in accordance with the

rules of the exchanges and what terms,

if any, should be imposed by the

Commission for the protection of

investors. The Commission, based on

the information submitted to it, will

issue an order granting the application

after the date mentioned above, unless

the Commission determines to order a

hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16059 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Release No. 34–37316; File No. SR–CBOE–

96–10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order

Approving Proposed Rule Change by

the Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Inc., Relating to Multiple

Representation

June 17, 1996.

I. Introduction

On March 6, 1996, the Chicago Board

Options Exchange, Inc. (‘‘CBOE’’ or

‘‘Exchange’’) submitted to the Securities

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) a proposed rule change

to amend CBOE Rule 6.55, ‘‘Multiple

Orders Prohibited,’’ to provide that,

except in accordance with procedures

established by the appropriate Floor

Procedure Committee, or with such

Floor Procedure Committee’s

permission in individual cases, no

market maker shall enter or be present

in a trading crowd while a floor broker

present in the trading crowd is holding

an order on behalf of the market maker’s

individual account or an order initiated

by the market maker for an account in

which the market maker has an interest.

Notice of the proposal was published

for comment and appeared in the

Federal Register on March 28, 1996.1

No comments were received on the

proposed rule change.

II. Description of the Proposal

Currently, CBOE Rule 6.55 provides

that no CBOE member, for any account

in which he has an interest or on behalf

of a customer, shall maintain with more

than one broker orders for the purchase

or sale of the same option contract or

other security, or the same combination

of option contracts or other securities,

with the knowledge that such orders are

for the account of the same principal.

According to the Exchange, the purpose

of CBOE Rule 6.55 is to prevent a person

from being disproportionately

represented in a trading crowd.

In furtherance of this purpose, the

Exchange also has had a long-standing

policy of prohibiting market makers

from entering or being present in a

trading crowd while a floor broker

present in the trading crowd is holding

an order on behalf of the market maker’s

individual account or an order initiated

by the market maker for an account in

which the market maker has an interest,

except in accordance with procedures

established by the appropriate Floor

Procedure Committee or with such

Floor Procedure Committee’s

permission in individual cases.2 This

policy prevents a market maker from

avoiding CBOE Rule 6.55 by placing an

order with a floor broker for a particular

option contract or other security and

also representing himself or herself in

the trading crowd for such option

contract or other security. The purpose

of the proposal is to specifically

delineate this policy in the Exchange’s

rules by including it in a new paragraph

(b) to CBOE Rule 6.55.

In addition, the CBOE proposes to add

Interpretation and Policy .01 to CBOE

Rule 6.55 to specify three alternative

procedures that govern how a market

maker may permissibly enter a trading

crowd in which a floor broker is present

who holds an order on behalf of the

market maker’s individual account or an

order initiated by the market maker for

an account in which the market maker

has an interest.

Under the first alternative, the market

maker must make the floor broker aware

of the market maker’s intention to enter

the trading crowd and the floor broker