
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43809-43813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17614]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72649; File No. SR-FINRA-2014-020]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory 
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA 
Rule 2081, Prohibited Conditions Relating to Expungement of Customer 
Dispute Information

July 22, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On April 14, 2014, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a 
proposed rule change to adopt Rule 2081 to prohibit member firms and 
associated persons from conditioning or seeking to condition settlement 
of a dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate the 
customer for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, 
the firm's or associated person's request to expunge the customer 
dispute information which was the subject of the settlement from the 
Central Registration Depository (CRD[supreg]). The proposal was 
published for comment in the Federal Register on April 23, 2014.\3\ The 
Commission received 15 comments on the proposal.\4\ The Commission also 
received a letter from FINRA responding to commenters.\5\ This order 
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71959 (April 17, 
2014), 79 FR 22734 (SR-FINRA-2014-020) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Exhibit A for a list of comment letters.
    \5\ See Letter to Kevin O'Neill, Deputy Secretary, Commission, 
from Victoria Crane, Associate General Counsel, FINRA, dated July 
18, 2014 (``FINRA Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

A. Background

    The CRD is the central licensing and registration system for the 
securities industry. In general, information in the CRD is provided by 
broker-dealers, associated persons, and regulatory authorities in 
response to questions on the uniform registration forms.\6\ These forms 
require the disclosure of administrative and disciplinary information 
about registered personnel, including customer complaints, arbitration 
claims, and court filings made by customers, and the arbitration awards 
or court judgments that may result from those claims or filings 
(``customer dispute information'').\7\ FINRA, state regulators, and 
other regulators use this information in connection with their 
licensing and regulatory activities. Firms also use the information 
when making hiring decisions. In addition, the information that FINRA 
releases to the public through BrokerCheck[supreg] is a subset of the 
information in the CRD. Thus, any

[[Page 43810]]

information that is removed from CRD is no longer available through 
BrokerCheck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities Industry 
Registration or Transfer), Form U5 (Uniform Termination Notice for 
Securities Industry Registration), and Form U6 (Uniform Disciplinary 
Action Reporting Form).
    \7\ See Notice to Members (``NTM'') 04-16 (March 2004). See also 
Section 15A(i) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Brokers who wish to have customer dispute information removed from 
the CRD because, for example, they believe that the allegations made 
against them are unfounded or that they have been incorrectly 
identified, must seek expungement pursuant to FINRA Rule 2080 (formerly 
NASD Rule 2130).\8\ Rule 2080 requires firms and associated persons 
seeking expungement of customer dispute information from the CRD to 
obtain a court order that either directs expungement or confirms an 
arbitration award containing expungement relief. The rule requires that 
firms and associated persons seeking a court order or confirmation of 
an arbitration award name FINRA as a party to the proceeding. Upon 
request, FINRA may waive the obligation to be named as a party if FINRA 
determines that the expungement relief is based on an affirmative 
judicial or arbitral finding that: (1) The claim, allegation or 
information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous; (2) the 
registered person was not involved in the alleged investment-related 
sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation or 
conversion of funds; or (3) the claim, allegation or information is 
false.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48933 (December 16, 
2003), 68 FR 74667 (December 24, 2003) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-2002-168). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59987 
(May 27, 2009), 74 FR 26902 (June 4, 2009) (Order Approving File No. 
SR-FINRA-2009-016).
     The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) 
changed its name to FINRA in 2007. See Securities Exchange Act 
Release No. 56146 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42190 (August 1, 2007) 
Order Approving File No. SR-NASD-2007-053.
    \9\ See Rule 2080(b)(1). FINRA stated that while expungement of 
customer dispute information is an extraordinary measure, it is 
nevertheless appropriate where the information being expunged meets 
one of the criteria specified in Rule 2080 and has no meaningful 
investor protection or regulatory value. See Notice, supra note 3, 
79 FR 22734 at 22735.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA states that it has long had concerns about the practice of 
firms and associated persons conditioning settlement agreements for the 
purpose of obtaining expungement relief and, thereby, removing 
information from CRD that could be useful to investors. FINRA notes 
that it has taken numerous steps over the years to address its concerns 
regarding expungement. For example, in proposing NASD Rule 2130, the 
NASD (now FINRA) stated that the affirmative determination requirement 
imposed by the Rule on arbitrators would reduce, if not eliminate, the 
risk of expunging information that is critical to investor protection 
and regulatory interests based on an agreement between the parties.\10\ 
In NTM 04-43, NASD cautioned firms and associated persons that 
negotiating settlements with customers in return for exculpatory 
affidavits that the firm or associated person knows or should know are 
false or misleading is a violation of NASD rules.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Letter from Shirley H. Weiss, Associate General 
Counsel, NASD, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated September 
11, 2003. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48933, supra 
note 8, 68 FR 74667.
    \11\ In addition, NASD noted that ``[a]s a general matter, in 
connection with settling arbitration claims and/or other complaints, 
members may not engage in any conduct that impedes the ability of 
[FINRA] or any other securities industry regulator to investigate 
potential violations of [FINRA] rules or the securities laws. Such 
conditions would include . . . procuring, as a condition to 
settlement, affidavits or other statements from customers that 
falsely or misleadingly repudiate or otherwise contradict prior 
claims or complaints made by customers.'' See NTM 04-43 (June 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, FINRA proposed and the Commission approved, Rule 12805 to 
require arbitrators to perform additional fact finding before 
recommending expungement of customer dispute information from the 
CRD.\12\ Rule 12805 requires arbitrators, among other things, to review 
settlement documents, the amount of payments made to any party, and any 
other terms and conditions of the settlement. In addition, the Rule 
requires arbitrators to indicate in the award which of the grounds in 
Rule 2080 serves as the basis for their expungement recommendation and 
to provide a brief written explanation of the reasons for recommending 
expungement. FINRA stated that it believed that these requirements 
would address concerns about arbitrators recommending expungement under 
what might appear to be questionable facts and circumstances (e.g., 
cases that include payment of significant monetary compensation to the 
customer).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58886 (October 30, 
2008), 73 FR 66086 (November 6, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2008-010), which also adopted Rule 13805 to establish 
procedures that arbitrators must follow when considering requests 
for expungement relief in connection with intra-industry disputes.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57572 (March 27, 
2008), 73 FR 18308 (April 3, 2008) (Notice of File No. SR-FINRA-
2008-010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA states that due to concerns about the high percentage of 
expungement recommendations made in connection with settled arbitration 
claims, in 2013, FINRA sent to arbitrators, and published on its Web 
site, guidance stating that arbitrators should inquire whether a party 
conditioned settlement on an agreement not to oppose a request for 
expungement relief in determining whether to recommend expungement 
relief in settled arbitration claims.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice to Arbitrators and Parties on Expanded 
Expungement Guidance, available at http://www.finra.org/arbitrationandmediation/arbitration/specialprocedures/expungement/ 
(``Expanded Expungement Guidance''). Specifically, the guidance 
states: ``Arbitrators should inquire and fully consider whether a 
party conditioned a settlement of the arbitration upon agreement not 
to oppose the request for expungement in cases in which the investor 
does not participate in the expungement hearing or the requesting 
party states that an investor has indicated that he or she will not 
oppose the expungement request.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal

    Despite these measures, FINRA states that it continues to have 
concerns regarding the practice of firms and associated persons 
conditioning settlement agreements for the purpose of obtaining 
expungement relief in settlements involving customer disputes, as well 
as those related to arbitration claims. FINRA believes these agreements 
should be prohibited even if the customer offers not to oppose 
expungement as part of negotiating a settlement agreement. Further, 
FINRA believes that firms and associated persons should be prohibited 
from otherwise compensating customers in return for the customer's 
agreement not to oppose a request for expungement relief which would 
remove customer dispute information from the CRD.
    Accordingly, FINRA proposed Rule 2081 to expressly prohibit this 
conduct. Specifically, Rule 2081 would provide that: ``No member or 
associated person shall condition or seek to condition settlement of a 
dispute with a customer on, or to otherwise compensate the customer 
for, the customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the 
member's or associated person's request to expunge such customer 
dispute information from the CRD system.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The proposed rule change would not affect the processes 
relating to requests for expungement relief set forth in Rules 2080, 
12805 and 13805. Thus, if an arbitration panel considers whether 
expungement is appropriate and consistent with Rule 12805, a 
customer would be free to express support for, or opposition to, the 
firm's or associated person's request for expungement as part of the 
recorded hearing session required by Rule 12805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA states the prohibition would apply to both written and oral 
agreements, and the proposal would apply to agreements entered into 
during the course of settlement negotiations, as well as to any 
agreements entered into separate from such negotiations. For example, 
the proposed rule change would preclude a firm or associated person 
from conditioning the settlement of a customer's claim on the 
customer's agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the firm's or 
associated person's

[[Page 43811]]

request for expungement. In addition, the proposed rule change would 
preclude a firm or associated person, following settlement of the 
underlying customer dispute, from compensating the customer in return 
for the customer not opposing the firm's or associated person's 
expungement request.
    FINRA states that as an alternative to proposed Rule 2081, some 
industry representatives suggested that FINRA consider enhanced 
arbitrator training.\16\ Since adopting NASD Rule 2130 in 2004, FINRA 
has required all arbitrators to take a training course on expungement. 
Recently, FINRA significantly revised its training for arbitrators 
regarding expungement. The revised training became available on FINRA's 
Web site on February 28, 2014.\17\ The revised training highlights the 
importance of the information in the CRD and the arbitrator's critical 
role in maintaining the integrity of disclosure information contained 
in CRD. While FINRA recognizes the importance of arbitrator training in 
the expungement process, and anticipates that the revised training will 
further focus arbitrators' attention on the appropriate analysis 
associated with determining whether to recommend expungement, FINRA 
states that it remains concerned about parties to a settlement 
agreement ``bargaining for'' expungement relief as a condition to 
settlement. The proposed rule change would address this concern by 
expressly prohibiting firms and associated persons from conditioning 
settlement agreements, or otherwise compensating customers, for the 
purpose of obtaining expungement relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3, 79 FR 22734 at 22735.
    \17\ See FINRA Arbitrator Training Online Learning Courses, 
available at http://www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/Arbitrators/Training/AdvancedTraining/P124939. All arbitrator 
applicants must complete this training to become eligible to serve 
on arbitration cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments and FINRA's Response

    The Commission received 15 comment letters on the proposed rule 
change.\18\ Twelve commenters support the proposal,\19\ one of which 
requested clarification regarding the proposed rule.\20\ Of the three 
remaining commenters, one commenter neither supports nor opposes the 
proposal; the commenter is against expungement under any 
circumstances.\21\ Another commenter supports the concept but is 
against the proposal as drafted.\22\ The third commenter did not opine 
on the merits of the proposal.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra, note 4.
    \19\ See Aidikoff, Amato, Bakhtiari, Caruso, Friedman, FSI, GSU, 
NASAA, Pace, PIABA, SIFMA, and Steiner letters.
    \20\ See SIFMA letter.
    \21\ See Estell letter.
    \22\ See Ryder letter.
    \23\ See Jacobowitz letter. The commenter provided information 
regarding the decrease in the percentage of expungements granted 
after FINRA issued the Expanded Expungement Guidance. See supra note 
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 12 commenters who support the proposal, five \24\ express 
concern that the proposal may not go far enough ``in preventing 
expungements at unacceptably high rates,'' \25\ ``ensuring expungements 
are the exception rather than the rule,'' \26\ and addressing ``the 
multitude of other issues that are associated with expungement'' which 
``undermine investor confidence and threaten the protection of 
investors.'' \27\ Several of these commenters provide suggestions 
regarding additional steps that FINRA should take to improve the 
expungement process.\28\ In response, FINRA states that it will 
continue to monitor the effectiveness of the training and other 
resource materials on expungement it has provided to arbitrators and 
make any additions or changes as necessary.\29\ In addition, FINRA 
states that, while it believes these comments are outside the scope of 
the proposal, it is continuously looking at ways to improve the 
expungement process and appreciates commenters' suggestions.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Caruso, GSU, PIABA, NASAA, and Steiner letters.
    \25\ See PIABA letter at 2.
    \26\ See GSU letter at 2. See also PIABA letter at 3.
    \27\ See Caruso letter. The letter does not specify the other 
issues to which it refers.
    \28\ See, e.g., GSU, PIABA, NASAA, and Steiner letters.
    \29\ See FINRA Response Letter at 6.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter believes that certain statements in FINRA's Notice 
could constitute an additional substantive requirement for expungement 
relief--that the information being expunged has no meaningful investor 
protection or regulatory value.\31\ In response, FINRA states that 
FINRA's references to expungement relief being appropriate when the 
information to be expunged has no meaningful investor protection or 
regulatory value is not a new requirement, as FINRA has made this 
statement several times in the past.\32\ In addition, FINRA states that 
this reference is not intended to expand the criteria in Rule 2080, but 
rather to emphasize the investor protection and regulatory concerns 
relating to expungement of customer dispute information from the 
CRD.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See SIFMA letter at 2-3.
    \32\ See FINRA Response Letter at 7.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to another commenter, who takes no issue with the 
concept, the proposal as drafted is overbroad.\34\ That commenter 
believes a respondent should be able to openly ask a claimant ``to 
stipulate to the issue of expungement relief being withheld from the 
anticipated settlement for the purpose of further proceedings,'' 
believing that a respondent should retain the right to condition a 
settlement upon a stipulation that the parties will request the 
arbitrators to consider the remaining or outstanding issue of 
expungement relief.\35\ In addition, this commenter believes that 
respondents should have the right to ask claimants whether they plan to 
be present at the expungement hearings, and what their stance will be 
on the issue of expungement.\36\ In response, FINRA states that the 
proposal would not prevent parties from clarifying in the settlement 
agreement that expungement is not addressed in the agreement, nor would 
it preclude a respondent from inquiring whether any party intends to 
support or oppose a request for expungement relief.\37\ However, FINRA 
states that it would consider any actions by a member firm to influence 
another party to a settlement agreement for purposes of obtaining 
expungement relief, whether expressly or otherwise, to be a potential 
violation of the proposed rule.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Ryder letter.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter asks FINRA to clarify whether member firms may 
include recitals in settlement agreements to the effect that: (i) The 
respondent intends to seek expungement relief; (ii) such expungement 
request was not a condition of the settlement agreement; (iii) 
respondent has not paid any consideration related to the expungement 
request; and (iv) claimant may participate in the hearing on 
expungement if he/she so chooses.\39\ In response, FINRA states that 
the proposed rule change would not prohibit a respondent from including 
such recitals in the settlement agreement, and believes their inclusion 
would reinforce the concept that parties cannot offer or receive any 
consideration for expungement relief as a condition to settlement.\40\ 
FINRA also notes that it will issue guidance, as needed, to clarify the 
rule's applicability

[[Page 43812]]

to particular facts and circumstances as questions arise.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See SIFMA letter at 1-2.
    \40\ See FINRA Response Letter at 4.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter is concerned with how FINRA will enforce the new 
rule. This commenter believes that firms or associated persons may 
attempt to skirt the rule and include prohibited conditions to 
settlement in cover letters or emails that are not seen by arbitrators, 
or enter into unrecorded oral agreements with customers.\42\ The 
commenter states that there should be a specific enforcement mechanism 
and clear consequences for failing to comply with the rule.\43\ While 
concerned about how the rule will be enforced, the commenter states 
that the rule ``would further prevent firms from using expungement as a 
bargaining chip in settlement negotiations and could allow for a more 
balanced presentation to the arbitrators of the facts of a dispute.'' 
\44\ In response to this commenter's concerns, FINRA states that the 
proposal's prohibition would apply to written and oral agreements and 
agreements entered into during the course of, and separate from, 
settlement negotiations, regardless of when or in what form.\45\ In 
addition, FINRA states that it will update its arbitrator guidance to 
incorporate the new rule and to further emphasize the importance of 
arbitrators inquiring whether a party conditioned settlement on an 
agreement that the customer not oppose a request for expungement. In 
response to concerns regarding enforcement, FINRA states that a 
violation of the proposed rule would subject member firms and their 
associated persons to a variety of applicable sanctions, including 
possible disciplinary action for violation of FINRA Rules, including 
Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade), and 
other penalties, and refers the commenter to Rule 8310 (Sanctions for 
Violations of Rules).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See NASAA letter at 3.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id. at 2.
    \45\ See FINRA Response Letter at 3.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After carefully reviewing the proposed rule change and the comment 
letters, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is 
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and 
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities 
association.\47\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\48\ which 
requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules be designed to prevent 
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and 
equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has 
considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency, 
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, prohibiting member firms and associated persons from 
conditioning or seeking to condition settlement of a dispute with a 
customer on, or otherwise compensating the customer for, the customer's 
agreement to consent to, or not to oppose, the firm's or associated 
person's request to expunge information regarding customer disputes and 
arbitration claims from the CRD should help assure that accurate and 
complete customer dispute information remains available to the 
investing public, regulators, and broker-dealers. As discussed above, 
current FINRA rules, on their face, permit expungement only in very 
narrow circumstances and after a series of procedural steps has been 
satisfied. In the first instance, FINRA rules set a high bar for 
arbitrators before they grant expungement of customer dispute 
information, requiring a finding that the claim or allegation is 
factually impossible, clearly erroneous or false, or that the 
registered person was not involved in the alleged wrongdoing.\49\ FINRA 
has emphasized to arbitrators that expungement is an extraordinary 
remedy that should be granted only when the information to be expunged 
has no meaningful investor protection or regulatory value, and that 
arbitrators should ensure that they have all of the information 
necessary to make an informed and appropriate recommendation on 
expungement.\50\ A court order directing expungement or confirming an 
arbitration award containing expungement relief also is required.\51\ 
Furthermore, FINRA must be named as a party in the judicial 
proceedings, and may waive its right to be named only if FINRA 
determines that the expungement relief is based on affirmative judicial 
or arbitral findings that the claim or allegation is factually 
impossible, clearly erroneous or false, or that the registered person 
was not involved in the alleged wrongdoing.\52\ Despite the very narrow 
permissible grounds and procedural protections designed to assure 
expungement is an extraordinary remedy, however, arbitrators appear to 
grant expungement relief in a very high percentage of settled 
cases.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See FINRA Rules 2080 and 12805. Among other things, in 
cases involving settlements, the arbitrators must review the 
settlement documents and consider the amount of payments made to any 
party and other terms and conditions of the settlement.
    \50\ See Expanded Expungement Guidance, supra note 14. FINRA 
also reminded arbitrators of their obligation to provide a written 
explanation of the reasons for finding one of the narrow enumerated 
grounds applies to the facts of the case before them, and stated 
that such written explanation should be complete and not just a 
recitation of one of the enumerated grounds or of language in the 
expungement request. Specifically, arbitrators should identify the 
reason(s) for granting the expungement request and any specific 
documentary or other evidence they relied upon in so doing.
    \51\ See FINRA Rule 2080.
    \52\ Id. Under extraordinary circumstances FINRA may waive its 
right to be named a party if it determines that the expungement 
relief and accompanying findings are meritorious and the expungement 
would have no material adverse effect on investor protection, the 
integrity of the CRD, or regulatory requirements.
    \53\ See PIABA letter at 2. The PIABA Expungement Study found 
that for the time period January 1, 2007 through mid[hyphen]May 
2009, expungement was granted in 89 percent of the cases resolved by 
stipulated awards or settlement, and for the time period 
mid[hyphen]May 2009 through the end of 2011, expungement relief was 
granted in 96.9 percent of the cases resolved by settlements or 
stipulated awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The completeness of information in the CRD, including accurate 
customer dispute information, is critical for the protection of 
investors and effective regulatory oversight. In the context of 
settlement or other negotiations, the aggrieved customer's individual 
interest in compensation or other remedies may dominate, without due 
consideration for the effect of expungement on the public or regulatory 
interests. The proposed rule change, by eliminating the ability of 
parties to a customer dispute to bargain for expungement relief as a 
condition to a settlement agreement or otherwise, should help assure 
that negotiated customer consents or non-objections do not unduly 
influence the judicial or arbitral decision that expungement is 
appropriate. This should enhance the integrity of information in the 
CRD, to the benefit of the investing public and regulators. In 
addition, the Commission believes the proposed rule's application to 
both written and oral agreements, as well as any agreements separate 
from the negotiations, and the prohibition from compensating the 
customer following settlement for not opposing an expungement request 
are important aspects of the proposed rule change.
    Although the proposed rule change is a constructive step to help 
assure that the expungement of customer dispute information is an 
extraordinary remedy

[[Page 43813]]

that is permitted only in the appropriate narrow circumstances 
contemplated by FINRA rules, the Commission notes the high number of 
cases where arbitrators grant brokers' expungement requests. When 
information is expunged from the CRD, it is no longer available to 
regulators, broker-dealers, or the investing public. Both regulators 
and the investing public are disadvantaged when factual information is 
removed from the CRD.\54\ The Commission encourages FINRA to conduct a 
comprehensive review of its expungement rules and procedures to 
determine whether additional rulemaking is necessary or appropriate to 
assure that expungement in fact is treated as an extraordinary remedy 
that is permitted only where the information to be expunged has no 
meaningful investor protection or regulatory value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Indeed, Section 15A(i) of the Act requires FINRA to collect 
and make available ``information reported in connection with the 
registration or licensing of brokers and dealers and their 
associated persons, including disciplinary actions, regulatory, 
judicial, and arbitration proceedings, and other information 
required by law or exchange or association rule, and the source and 
status of such information. See 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(i)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the 
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act,\55\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2014-020), be, and 
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \56\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\56\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.

Exhibit A--List of Comment Letters Received for SR-FINRA-2014-020

1. Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett Caruso, P.C., dated April 21, 
2014 (``Caruso'')
2. Nicole Iannarone, Assistant Clinical Professor, Tim Guilmette, 
Student Intern, and Nataliya Obikhod, Student Intern, Georgia State 
University College of Law, dated May 1, 2014 (``GSU'')
3. Philip M. Aidikoff, Aidikoff, Uhl and Bakhtiari, dated May 1, 
2014 (``Aidikoff'')
4. Ryan K. Bakhtiari, Aidikoff, Uhl and Bakhtiari, dated May 5, 2014 
(``Bakhtiari'')
5. Richard P. Ryder, dated May 5, 2014 (``Ryder'')
6. Leonard Steiner, Steiner & Libo, PC, dated May 6, 2014 
(``Steiner'')
7. Barry D. Estell, dated May 7, 2014 (``Estell'')
8. George H. Friedman, George H. Friedman Consulting, LLC, dated May 
13, 2014 (``Friedman'')
9. Jason Doss, President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar 
Association, dated May 13, 2014 (``PIABA'')
10. David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, 
Financial Services Institute, dated May 14, 2014 (``FSI'')
11. Andrea Seidt, North American Securities Administrators 
Association (``NASAA'') President and Ohio Securities Commissioner, 
dated May 14, 2014 (``NASAA'')
12. Jill Gross, Director, Elissa Germaine, Supervising Attorney, and 
Michelle N. Robinson, Student Intern, John Jay Legal Services, Inc., 
Pace University School of Law, dated May 14, 2014 (``Pace'')
13. Kevin M. Carroll, Managing Director and Associate General 
Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, 
dated May 14, 2014 (``SIFMA'')
14. Ronald M. Amato, Amato Law Firm, LLC, dated May 15, 2014 
(``Amato'')
15. Harry A. Jacobowitz, Database Manager, Securities Arbitration 
Commentator, Inc., dated May 16, 2014 (``Jacobowitz'')

[FR Doc. 2014-17614 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


