Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 / Notices 31197

the proportionate or percentage amount

of sales charges deducted not exceed the

proportionate or percentage amount

previously deducted pursuant to the

same method.

13. Applicants assert that, if Section

27(a)(3) and the related provisions of

Rule 6e–3(T) were interpreted to

prevent the resumption of sales charge

deductions from contract assets once the

deduction of such charges has ceased

for any reason, the utility of policy

designs that deduct sales charges from

contract assets would be greatly

reduced. Applicants submit that

deducting part of the sales charges from

Policy value, rather than from premium

payments, is advantageous to Policy

owners because more assets are put to

work as Policy value with the potential

of earning a return for the Policy

owner’s benefit.

14. Third, Rule 6e–3(T)(c)(4) defines

‘‘sales load’’ for any contract period as

the excess of premium payments over

changes in ‘‘cash value’’ (other than

from investment performance) and

certain enumerated charges. Applicants

submit that because premium based

bonuses and Policy value bonuses affect

the Policy’s cash value in the contract

period during which they are credited,

such bonuses could be deemed to result

in sales charges that vary from one

contract period to the next, relative to

the amount of premium payments paid

in such periods. The stair step

provisions could apply to the extent that

the sales load, as a percentage of

premium payments made in a contract

period, were thereby deemed to be more

than that in a prior contract period.

Applicants submit that the Policy’s

charge structure complies with the spirit

and apparent purposes of Rule 6e–

3(T)(b)(13)(ii) and 6e–3(T)(d)(1)(ii).

15. The stair step issues under the

Policies result from the imposition of

deferred sales charges in the form of

monthly and/or daily deductions and,

in the case of Policies that are

surrendered or lapse before a certain

time, the surrender charge. The stair

step issues under the Policies do not

result from early deduction of front-end

charges. Although sales charges will be

deducted through several different types

of deductions, the rate of these charges

will not increase.

Conclusion

For the reasons summarized above,

Applicants represent that the

exemptions requested are necessary and

appropriate in the public interest and

consistent with the protection of

investors and the purposes fairly

intended by the policy and provisions of

the 1940 Act.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Investment Management, pursuant to

delegated authority.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15509 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application

to Withdraw From Listing and

Registration (Medicore, Inc., Common

Stock, $.01 Par Value); File No. 1–9167

June 12, 1996.

Medicore, 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, its Board

of Directors unanimously approved

resolutions on May 6, 1996 to withdraw

the Security from listing on the Amex

and instead, to list the Security on the

National Association of Securities

Dealers Automated Quotations National

Market System (‘‘Nasdaq/NMS’’).

The decision of the Board followed a

thorough study of the matter and was

based upon the belief that listing the

Security on the Nasdaq/NMS will be

more beneficial to the Company’s

stockholders than the present listing on

the Amex because:

The Board of Directors has

determined as per the resolutions dated

May 6, 1996 of which this withdrawal

statement is a part, to withdraw its

security from listing on the Amex to

provide its Security with what the

Board believes to be a broader base of

trading and greater liquidity, all to the

benefit of its shareholders and investors.

The Company has had good relations

with the Amex and its staff, but believes

in its evaluation of its trading market

over the years and discussions with

other investment banking firms, that it

is in the best interest of the Company

and its shareholders to withdraw its

listing of its Security from the Amex

and list the Security on the Nasdaq

National Market. It is the opinion of the

Board that the Company will be

provided with greater visibility and that

its Security with a broader base of

trading and more liquidity for

shareholders and investors in the

decentralized market place of the

Nasdaq National Market.

Over the years, the Company has held

discussions with the staff of the Amex

and the specialist dealing with the

Company’s Security as to the depth of

trading, volume, block transactions and

pricing, resulting in ultimately a new

specialist being appointed for trading

the Company’s Security. The Board,

after full evaluation, has determined

that the Nasdaq National Market, a

major trading market with very

significant national and international

corporations having listed their

securities for trading on the Nasdaq

National Market, will provide a more

liquid, efficient and broader market for

the Company’s securities. Further, the

Board, based on discussions with other

broker/dealers over the years, is of the

opinion that the Company will have

more broker-dealers involved with it

and its securities, with greater exposure

in the financial community and such

will, to the extent necessary, facilitate

further capital formation. All of the

above factors will certainly be beneficial

to the Company’s shareholders and

investors.

Any interested person may, on or

before July 3, 1996 submit by letter to

the Secretary of the Securities and

Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street

NW., Washington, DC 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. 96–15449 Filed 6–18–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

[Investment Company Act Rel. No. 22016;

812–10058]

Sirrom Capital Corporation; Notice of

Application

June 13, 1996.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange

Commission (‘‘SEC’’).

ACTION: Notice of Application under the

Investment Company Act of 1940 (the

‘‘Act’’).