64846 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 

28 15 U.S.C. 78q–1(b)(3)(I). 

29Any additional proposed rule change by OCC 

expected to have the effect of eliminating the use 

of dividend play trades would also have to be 

presented to the Commission for consideration 

prior to taking effect. Points such as those made in 

the Duane Morris Letter regarding expected effects 

on competition and other consequences resulting 

from such a proposed change would necessarily be 

reconsidered by the Commission in light of the 

rationales presented by OCC at that time. 

30 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 

31 15 U.S.C. 78q–1. 

32 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

33 In approving the proposed rule change, the 

Commission considered the proposal’s impact on 

efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 

U.S.C. 78c(f). 

34 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

eliminate the use of dividend plays in 

the accounts of market-makers in light 

of the identifiable improvements in the 

safety of its processes that are expected 

to result from the changes. 

Through its internal governance 

process, OCC has determined that 

dividend play trades have the potential 

to pose certain risks to market 

participants, including OCC clearing 

members, and, in general, are not in the 

public interest. In making such a 

determination, OCC’s proposed rule 

change will limit the use of dividend 

plays through the modification of the 

processing sequence by which these 

trades are cleared and settled at OCC. 

While the Commission acknowledges 

the point raised by Duane Morris and 

confirmed by OCC in its proposal, that 

dividend play trading does not present 

any current operational risk to OCC, the 

Commission believes that neither 

Section 17A of the Exchange Act nor 

Rule 17Ad–22 limit OCC to exclusively 

addressing risks that are currently 

present for the clearing agency alone. 

Given its important role in the national 

clearance and settlement system and its 

designation as a systemically important 

financial market utility by the Financial 

Stability Oversight Council in 2012, the 

Commission believes OCC is entitled 

under the Exchange Act to take into 

account the interests of its clearing 

members, as well as foreseeable effects 

of its actions on the financial system 

more generally, when reviewing and 

considering changes to its operational 

practices. There is a clearly articulated 

basis for believing the proposed action 

by OCC will improve the national 

clearance and settlement system by 

increasing the safety of the system in 

identifiable ways for at least a portion 

of OCC’s membership as reflected in 

OCC’s proposal and in the comment 

letters received, and the Commission 

believes such improvements are 

consistent with the relevant 

requirements of the Exchange Act. In 

particular, since the clearing of 

dividend play trades is not restricted 

based on clearing member capitalization 

and risk-management processes, the 

proposal serves to mitigate a foreseeable 

source of operational risk by precluding 

clearing members with less robust risk 

management processes from clearing 

such dividend trades in the future. 

The Commission also finds that the 

proposal does not impose any burden 

on competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

Exchange Act. The appropriate 

standard, as set forth in Section 

17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act, 

requires that the rules of the clearing 

agency do not impose any burden on 

competition not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of the 

Exchange Act.28 The Commission 

believes that the proposed rule change 

does not impose a burden on 

competition that is not necessary or 

appropriate in furtherance of 

minimizing potential sources of 

operational risk and promoting the 

prompt and accurate clearance and 

settlement of securities transactions. 

Moreover, since the majority of 

dividend plays occur in market-maker 

accounts, there is a reasonable basis for 

OCC to believe it is prudent risk 

management to start curtailing dividend 

play trading in the types of accounts in 

which it primarily occurs. Furthermore, 

the Commission notes that the proposed 

changes by OCC would not have the 

effects of ending dividend plays entirely 

for market-makers or any other 

participants in the options market. A 

market-maker, for example, will still 

have the ability to participate in the 

capturing of dividend after the 

operational changes proposed by OCC 

are in effect by exercising long in-themoney call options on the day prior to 

the ex-dividend date, so long as its 

position in the particular option is net 

long. While some consequential effects 

would necessarily follow from OCC 

implementing the proposed changes in 

its operational practices, absent action 

to eliminate dividend plays entirely, at 

this time the Commission believes 

OCC’s choice to consider the beneficial 

effects of its operational changes 

outweigh any negative effects to be 

consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of 

the Exchange Act.29

Pursuant to Section 3(f) of the 

Exchange Act, in the review of a rule of 

a self-regulatory organization, the 

Commission shall consider whether the 

action will promote efficiency, 

competition, and capital formation.30 As 

described above, Duane Morris argues 

that market efficiency is not advanced 

by the net long requirement for the 

processing of call options in MarketMaker accounts. Duane Morris appears 

to base its assertion on its belief that 

fraud and/or manipulation are not 

concerns with dividend play 

transactions, and that such trading 

imposes no harm to public investors. 

The Commission believes that Duane 

Morris has not provided ample evidence 

to support the assertion that the 

proposed rule change does not advance 

market efficiency. 

V. Conclusion 

On the basis of the foregoing, the 

Commission finds that the proposal is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Act and in particular with the 

requirements of Section 17A of the 

Act 31 and the rules and regulations 

thereunder. 

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,32

that the proposed rule change (File No. 

SR–OCC–2014–15) be and hereby is 

approved.33

For the Commission by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.34

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25879 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73439; File No. SR–CBOE– 

2014–082] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

Chicago Board Options Exchange, 

Incorporated; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed 

Rule Change Relating to the CBOE 

Trade Match System 

October 27, 2014. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

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

notice is hereby given that on October 

24, 2014, Chicago Board Options 

Exchange, Incorporated (the ‘‘Exchange’’ 

or ‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I, II, and 

III below, which Items have been 

prepared by the Exchange. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 64847 

3See, e.g., CBOE Rule 6.61 which provides that 

a Trading Permit Holder ‘‘shall be obligated to 

reconcile all unmatched trades . . . and to report 

all reconciliations and corrections to the Exchange 

or the Clearing Trading Permit Holder responsible 

for submission to the Exchange.’’ 

4See CBOE Rule 6.54. 

5For example, a TPH may not have been able to 

enter its side of a transaction due to a system issue 

with the trade match record entry process. 

6See CBOE Rule 6.51(d). 

7See CBOE Rule 6.61. See also, CBOE Rule 6.60. 

On each business day the Exchange shall match the 

trade information submitted by TPHs on that day 

and issue Unmatched Trade Reports to each 

Clearing Trading Permit Holder, (‘‘CTPH’’) which 

contains a list of such CTPH’s trades for that day 

which the Exchange did not receive matching trade 

data from another CTPH (called ‘‘unmatched 

trades’’). Upon receipt of an Unmatched Trade 

Report, a TPH must reconcile all unmatched trades 

and report all reconciliations and corrections to the 

Exchange or the CTPH responsible for submission 

to the Exchange. 

8Under a Clearing Member Trade Agreement 

(‘‘CMTA’’), an Options Clearing Corporation 

(‘‘OCC’’) clearing member (‘‘carrying clearing 

member’’) authorizes another clearing member 

(‘‘executing clearing member’’) to give up the name 

of the carrying clearing member with respect to any 

trade executed on a specific exchange (i.e., the reassignment of a trade to a different Clearing firm 

occurs post-trade at the OCC). 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to adopt a 

new rule related to its existing CBOE 

Trade Match System functionality. The 

text of the proposed rule change is 

available on the Exchange’s Web site 

(http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/

CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at 

the Exchange’s Office of the Secretary, 

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, the 

Exchange 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 

Exchange 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 

The Exchange is proposing to adopt 

new Rule 6.67 related to its existing 

CBOE Trade Match System (‘‘CTM’’) 

functionality. CTM is a systems user 

interface provided by the Exchange in 

which authorized Trading Permit 

Holders (‘‘TPHs’’) may receive copies of 

trade records and add and/or update 

their trade records. Although references 

to CTM exist within Regulatory and 

Information Circulars, as well as 

technical specifications, the 

functionality is not currently described 

in Exchange rules. The Exchange 

believes it would be beneficial to 

address and provide further detail in its 

rules regarding the CTM functionality 

and permitted uses. 

Exchange rules currently contemplate 

post trade modifications.3 Such 

modifications may be effected via the 

CTM system. A rule explicitly detailing 

the modification process and defining 

what permitted modifications are 

allowed however does not currently 

exist in the Exchange’s rules. The 

Exchange believes it would be useful to 

explicitly reference within the rule text 

the term ‘‘CTM’’ and codify what post 

trade modifications via CTM are 

permitted to reduce confusion and add 

additional transparency to the rules 

regarding CBOE’s systems. 

First, the Exchange proposes to 

explicitly reference and describe 

‘‘CTM.’’ Specifically, CTM is a system 

in which authorized TPHs may enter 

and report transactions that have been 

effected on the Exchange in accordance 

with Exchange rules (e.g., Cabinet 

Trades 4 or other trades that have been 

transacted on the Exchange in 

accordance with Exchange rules, but 

were not processed through the Hybrid 

System 5) or to correct bona fide errors 

(e.g., a situation in which a transaction 

was reported using the wrong strike). 

Documentation requirements related to 

changes made through the use of CTM 

will be announced via a Regulatory 

Circular. 

By way of background, CBOE Rule 

6.51 requires that for all transactions 

made on the Exchange, TPHs must file 

with the Exchange certain trade 

information 6 in order to allow the 

Exchange to properly match and clear 

trades. This information is used to 

provide the comparison of the two sides 

(i.e., buy and sell) of a transaction. 

When the two sides match, the trade is 

successfully compared and will move 

on to the Options Clearing Corporation 

(‘‘OCC’’) for clearance. For trades that 

do not match (i.e., trade information 

from each side do not match) TPHs and 

their respective representatives must 

make reasonable efforts to resolve 

unmatched trades on trade day.7 The 

Exchange notes that unmatched trades 

may be a result of software problems or 

systemic problems that cause incorrect 

information to be filed or a result of 

other errors such as ‘‘key punch’’ errors 

which result from manual data entry 

(i.e., trade information outside the 

written order instructions may have 

been mistakenly keyed in during user 

input). The Exchange notes that CTM 

may be used by TPHs to change certain 

fields on a trade record for which it has 

authority to correct, in order to update 

a trade record or correct an unmatched 

field to resolve an out-trade. The 

Exchange proposes to codify what post 

trade modifications via CTM are 

permitted and further specify which 

changes will require notification to the 

Exchange. 

The Exchange first seeks to specify 

which fields may be changed by TPHs 

through the use of CTM without notice 

to the Exchange. Those fields are: (1) 

Executing Firm and Contra Firm; (2) 

Executing Broker and Contra Broker; (3) 

CMTA; 8 (4) Market-Maker Account and 

Sub Account; (5) Customer ID; (6) 

Position Effect (open/close); (7) 

Optional Data and/or (8) Origin Code 

(provided the change is not from a 

customer origin code to any other origin 

code). The Exchange notes that the 

information contained in these fields 

does not affect the terms of a contract or 

the Consolidated Tape. Rather, the 

Exchange views these changes to be 

non-critical backoffice changes and as 

such, the Exchange does not believe it 

needs notice from the TPH making the 

change. The Exchange also notes that 

such changes would be captured in the 

Exchange’s audit trail. 

Next, the Exchange proposes to 

specify which fields may be changed by 

TPHs through the use of CTM that 

require TPHs to give notice to the 

Exchange in a form and manner 

determined by the Exchange. 

Specifically, those fields are: (1) Series; 

(2) Quantity; (3) Buy or Sell; (4) 

Premium Price and/or (5) Origin Code 

(if changing origin code from customer 

(C) to any other origin code). The 

Exchange notes that these fields, with 

the exception of origin code, do change 

the terms of the contract and 

additionally affect the Consolidated 

Tape. As such, the Exchange proposes 

to require notice and further 

documentation as to why such a change 

is being made in order to monitor such 

changes, as well as take the necessary 

steps to ensure that any such changes 

are properly reflected in the 

Consolidated Tape. As to changes from 

a Customer (C) origin code to any other 

origin code, the Exchange notes that 

while such change does not affect the 

Consolidated Tape or terms of a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
64848 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 

9For example, if the Exchange provides a TPH 

the ability to make a change via CTM, such action 

should not be construed as a determination by the 

Exchange that the transaction proposed is in 

conformity with Exchange Rules. 

10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 12 Id. 

13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

14 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). 

contract, such changes may affect other 

substantive aspects of how a trade was 

processed, including whether a trade 

should have been given order priority. 

Accordingly, the Exchange believes that 

TPHs making changes to these fields 

should be required to provide to the 

Exchange notice and documentation 

relating to the change. The Exchange 

proposes to require that notification of 

the change be made as soon as 

practicable, but no later than fifteen (15) 

minutes after the change has been made. 

The Exchange notes that it will not be 

authorizing any changes prior to the 

TPH making changes to any of the 

above-mentioned fields (i.e., the 

Exchange will not expressly indicate 

whether or not a change identified in a 

TPH’s notice is in conformity with 

Exchange rules prior to the change being 

made). Rather, due to inherent time 

constraints, such changes will be 

reviewed by Exchange personnel after 

the fact, and a TPH that is found to have 

made an improper modification may be 

subject to appropriate disciplinary 

action in accordance with the Rules of 

the Exchange as described more fully 

below. 

The Exchange lastly proposes to adopt 

Interpretation and Policy .01 to provide 

that any action taken by the Exchange 

pursuant to proposed Rule 6.67(b) and 

(c) does not constitute a determination 

by the Exchange that the transaction 

was effected in conformity with 

Exchange Rules.9 As noted above, any 

improper change made through CTM 

shall be processed and given effect, but 

the TPH may be subject to appropriate 

disciplinary action in accordance with 

Exchange rules. Additionally, the 

Exchange notes that nothing in 

proposed Rule 6.67 is intended to define 

or limit the ability of the Exchange to 

sanction or take other remedial action 

pursuant to other Exchange rules for 

rule violations or other activity for 

which remedial measures may be 

proposed. The Exchange notes that 

given the inherent time constraints in 

making various changes to exchange 

transactions, the Exchange would not be 

able to adequately consider the abovementioned requirements and make a 

determination within the time required 

as to whether a change was improper or 

not. As such the Exchange will not 

prevent any changes from being 

processed and given effect, but will 

review such changes after the fact to 

ensure compliance with Exchange rules. 

2. Statutory Basis 

The Exchange believes the proposed 

rule change is consistent with the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) and the rules and regulations 

thereunder applicable to the Exchange 

and, in particular, the requirements of 

Section 6(b) of the Act.10 Specifically, 

the Exchange believes the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Section 

6(b)(5) 11 requirements that the rules of 

an exchange be designed to prevent 

fraudulent and manipulative acts and 

practices, to promote just and equitable 

principles of trade, to foster cooperation 

and coordination with persons engaged 

in regulating, clearing, settling, 

processing information with respect to, 

and facilitating transactions in 

securities, to remove impediments to 

and perfect the mechanism of a free and 

open market and a national market 

system, and, in general, to protect 

investors and the public interest. 

Additionally, the Exchange believes the 

proposed rule change is consistent with 

the Section 6(b)(5) 12 requirement that 

the rules of an exchange not be designed 

to permit unfair discrimination between 

customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 

The Exchange views CTM as an 

important tool that allows TPHs to 

receive copies of trade records and add 

and/or update trade records. 

Specifically, as described above, 

Exchange rules contemplate post trade 

modifications and also require that 

TPHs resolve unmatched trades. The 

Exchange believes CTM provides TPHs 

an effective mechanism to make such 

changes and reconcile out-trades due to 

bona fide errors, thereby removing 

impediments to and perfecting the 

mechanism of a free and open market 

and a national market system, and 

protecting investors and the public 

interest. Additionally, CTM provides a 

mechanism to enter trade records for 

trades effected on the Exchange in 

accordance with Exchange rules, but 

that were not processed through the 

Hybrid System and would otherwise be 

processed outside of CBOE’s systems. 

The Exchange also believes that 

clearly defining in the rules existing 

system functionality (i.e., CTM) 

provides additional transparency in the 

rules and provides market participants 

an additional avenue to easily 

understand the system and processes 

CBOE offers. The Exchange believes 

additional transparency removes a 

potential impediment to and perfecting 

the mechanism for a free and open 

market and a national market system, 

and, in general, protecting investors and 

the public interest. Additionally, the 

Exchange believes that requiring certain 

changes made through the CTM system 

allows the Exchange to receive from 

TPHs information in a uniform format, 

which aids the Exchange’s efforts to 

monitor and regulate CBOE’s markets 

and TPHs and helps prevent fraudulent 

and manipulative practices. 

Finally, the Exchange believes that 

the proposed rule changes are designed 

to not permit unfair discrimination 

among market participants. For example 

all TPHs may request access to CTM. 

Additionally, all TPHs will be subject to 

the same limitations as to the permitted 

uses of CTM functionality. 

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Burden on Competition 

The Exchange does not believe that 

the proposed rule change will impose 

any burden on competition that is not 

necessary or appropriate in furtherance 

of the purposes of the Act. The 

Exchange believes that proposed Rule 

6.67 will promote competition by 

making the CTM functionality more 

understandable to users and the general 

public. The Exchange believes that by 

better explaining its CTM functionality 

to TPHs and codifying the permitted 

uses of CTM, TPHs will better 

understand the Exchange’s systems. The 

Exchange believes that additional clarity 

and transparency in the Rules will make 

it easier for market participants to 

compete with one another on equal 

footing in the markets and ultimately 

benefits all investors. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants or Others 

The Exchange neither solicited nor 

received written comments on the 

proposed rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

Because the foregoing proposed rule 

change does not: 

A. significantly affect the protection 

of investors or the public interest; 

B. impose any significant burden on 

competition; and 

C. become operative for 30 days from 

the date on which it was filed, or such 

shorter time as the Commission may 

designate, it has become effective 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act 13 and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) 14

thereunder. At any time within 60 days 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Notices 64849 

15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

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

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4The Commission originally approved the listing 

and trading of the Shares on the Exchange on May 

16, 2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

67003 (May 16, 2012), 77 FR 30345 (May 22, 2012) 

(SR–NYSEArca–2012–24) (‘‘Prior Order’’). See also 

Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66696 (March 

30, 2012), 77 FR 20660 (April 5, 2012) (SR– 

NYSEArca–2012–24) (‘‘Prior Notice’’). 

5The Trust is registered under the Investment 

Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–1) (‘‘1940 

Act’’). On July 15, 2011, the Trust filed with the 

Commission Post-Effective Amendment No. 32 to 

Form N–1A under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 

U.S.C. 77a), and under the 1940 Act relating to the 

Fund (File Nos. 333–157876 and 811–22110) 

(‘‘Registration Statement’’). The description of the 

operation of the Trust and the Fund herein is based, 

in part, on the Registration Statement. In addition, 

the Commission has issued an order granting 

certain exemptive relief to the Trust under the 1940 

Act. See Investment Company Act Release No. 

29291 (May 28, 2010) (File No. 812–13677) 

(‘‘Exemptive Order’’). 

of the filing of the proposed rule change, 

the Commission summarily may 

temporarily suspend such rule change if 

it appears to the Commission that such 

action is necessary or appropriate in the 

public interest, for the protection of 

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act. If the 

Commission takes such action, the 

Commission will institute proceedings 

to determine whether the proposed rule 

change should be approved or 

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 (http://www.sec.gov/

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– 

CBOE–2014–082 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–CBOE–2014–082. 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 Web site (http://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 Web site 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 

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such 

filing also will be available for 

inspection and copying at the principal 

offices of the Exchange. All comments 

received will be posted without change; 

the Commission does not edit personal 

identifying information from 

submissions. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. All submissions 

should refer to File Number SR–CBOE– 

2014–082, and should be submitted on 

or before November 21, 2014. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.15

Kevin M. O’Neill, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25880 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–73433; File No. SR– 

NYSEArca–2014–122] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change Relating to Use of 

Derivative Instruments by the 

AdvisorShares Global Echo ETF 

October 27, 2014. 

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

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 

‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on October 

23, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the 

‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘NYSE Arca’’) filed with 

the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the 

proposed rule change as described in 

Items I and II below, which Items have 

been prepared by the self-regulatory 

organization. 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 

The Exchange proposes to reflect a 

change to the means of achieving the 

investment objective applicable to the 

AdvisorShares Global Echo ETF (‘‘The 

Fund’’) relating to its use of derivative 

instruments. The text of the proposed 

rule change is available on the 

Exchange’s Web site at www.nyse.com, 

at the principal office of the Exchange, 

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, the 

self-regulatory organization 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 those statements may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The Exchange has prepared summaries, 

set forth in sections A, B, and C below, 

of the most significant parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Commission has approved listing 

and trading on the Exchange of shares 

(‘‘Shares’’) of the Fund under NYSE 

Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs 

the listing and trading of Managed Fund 

Shares on the Exchange.4 The Shares are 

offered by AdvisorShares Trust 

(‘‘Trust’’), a statutory trust organized 

under the laws of the State of Delaware 

and registered with the Commission as 

an open-end management investment 

company.5

The investment adviser to the Fund is 

AdvisorShares Investments, LLC 

(‘‘Adviser’’). The Fund’s sub-advisers 

(‘‘Sub-Advisers’’ and each a ‘‘SubAdviser’’), which provide day-to-day 

portfolio management of the Fund, are 

First Affirmative Financial Network 

LLC; Reynders, McVeigh Capital 

Management, LLC; Baldwin Brothers 

Inc.; and Community Capital 

Management Inc. 

In this proposed rule change, the 

Exchange proposes to change the 

description of the Fund’s use of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES