[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62142-62175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21660]



[[Page 62141]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 191

October 1, 2020

Part V





Securities and Exchange Commission





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





Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 
Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Codes of 
Arbitration Procedure Relating to Requests To Expunge Customer Dispute 
Information, Including Creating a Special Arbitrator Roster To Decide 
Certain Expungement Requests; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 2020 / 
Notices  

[[Page 62142]]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90000; File No. SR-FINRA-2020-030]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory 
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend 
the Codes of Arbitration Procedure Relating to Requests To Expunge 
Customer Dispute Information, Including Creating a Special Arbitrator 
Roster To Decide Certain Expungement Requests

September 25, 2020.
    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 September 22, 2020, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 modify the current process relating to the expungement of 
customer dispute information.
    Specifically, the proposed rule change would amend the Codes to: 
(1) Impose requirements on expungement requests (a) filed during an 
investment-related, customer initiated arbitration (``customer 
arbitration'') by an associated person, or by a party to the customer 
arbitration on-behalf-of an associated person (``on-behalf-of 
request''), or (b) filed by an associated person separate from a 
customer arbitration (``straight-in request''); (2) establish a roster 
of arbitrators with enhanced training and experience from which a 
three-person panel would be randomly selected to decide straight-in 
requests; (3) establish procedural requirements for expungement 
hearings; and (4) codify and update the best practices of the Notice to 
Arbitrators and Parties on Expanded Expungement Guidance (``Guidance'') 
that arbitrators and parties must follow.\3\ In addition, the proposed 
rule change would amend the Customer Code to specify procedures for 
requesting expungement of customer dispute information arising from 
simplified arbitrations. The proposed rule change would also amend the 
Codes to establish requirements for notifying state securities 
regulators and customers of expungement requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Guidance, available at https://www.finra.org/arbitration-and-mediation/notice-arbitrators-and-parties-expanded-expungement-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's 
website at http://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 and Discussion
A. Customer Dispute Information in the Central Registration Depository
    Information regarding customer disputes involving associated 
persons is maintained in the Central Registration Depository 
(``CRD[supreg]''), the central licensing and registration system used 
by the U.S. securities industry and its regulators.\4\ FINRA operates 
the CRD system pursuant to policies developed jointly with NASAA. FINRA 
works with the SEC, NASAA and other members of the regulatory community 
to ensure that information submitted and maintained in the CRD system 
is accurate and complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The concept for the CRD system was developed by FINRA 
jointly with the North American Securities Administrators 
Association (``NASAA''). The CRD system fulfills FINRA's statutory 
obligation to establish and maintain a system to collect and retain 
registration information. NASAA and state regulators play a critical 
role in the ongoing development and implementation of the CRD 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the information in the CRD system is submitted by 
registered securities firms, brokers and regulatory authorities in 
response to questions on the uniform registration forms.\5\ These forms 
are used to collect registration information, which includes, among 
other things, administrative, regulatory, criminal history, financial 
and other information about brokers, such as customer complaints, 
arbitration claims and court filings made by customers (i.e., 
``customer dispute information''). FINRA, state and other regulators 
use this information in connection with their licensing and regulatory 
activities, and member firms use this information to help them make 
informed employment decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The uniform registration forms are Form BD (Uniform 
Application for Broker-Dealer Registration), Form BDW (Uniform 
Request for Broker-Dealer Withdrawal), Form BR (Uniform Branch 
Office Registration Form), 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to rules approved by the SEC, FINRA makes specific CRD 
information publicly available through BrokerCheck[supreg].\6\ 
BrokerCheck is part of FINRA's ongoing effort to help investors make 
informed choices about the brokers and broker-dealer firms with which 
they may conduct business. BrokerCheck maintains information on the 
approximately 3,600 registered broker-dealer firms and 624,000 
registered brokers. BrokerCheck also provides the public with access to 
information about formerly registered broker-dealer firms and 
brokers.\7\ In 2019 alone, BrokerCheck helped users conduct more than 
40 million searches of firms and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 15A of the Exchange Act requires FINRA to provide 
registration information to the public. BrokerCheck is one of the 
tools through which FINRA disseminates this information to the 
public. There is a limited amount of information in the CRD system 
that FINRA does not display through BrokerCheck, including personal 
or confidential information. A detailed description of the 
information made available through BrokerCheck is available at 
http://www.finra.org/investors/about-brokercheck.
    \7\ Formerly registered brokers, although no longer in the 
securities industry in a registered capacity, may work in other 
investment-related industries or may seek to attain other positions 
of trust with potential investors. BrokerCheck provides information 
on more than 17,000 formerly registered broker-dealer firms and 
nearly 567,000 formerly registered brokers. Broker records are 
available in BrokerCheck for 10 years after a broker leaves the 
industry, and brokers who are the subject of disciplinary actions 
and certain other events remain on BrokerCheck permanently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulatory framework governing the CRD system and BrokerCheck 
has long contemplated the possibility of expunging certain customer 
dispute

[[Page 62143]]

information from these systems in limited circumstances, such as where 
the allegations made about the broker are factually impossible or 
clearly erroneous. The expungement framework seeks to balance the 
competing interests of providing regulators broad access to information 
about customer disputes to fulfill their regulatory obligations, 
providing a fair process that recognizes a broker's interest in 
protecting their reputation and ensuring investors have access to 
accurate information about brokers.
B. FINRA Rules 2080, 12805 and 13805 Governing Expungement of Customer 
Dispute Information
    A broker can seek expungement of customer dispute information by 
obtaining a court expungement order (1) by going through the FINRA 
arbitration process (and then obtaining a court order confirming an 
arbitration award containing expungement) or (2) by going directly to 
court (without first going to arbitration).
    FINRA rules require arbitrators to perform fact-finding before 
recommending expungement of customer dispute information and to provide 
information about the basis for the expungement. Specifically, FINRA 
Rules 12805 and 13805 require arbitrators to hold a recorded hearing 
regarding the appropriateness of expungement of customer dispute 
information and to review settlement documents, the amount of payments 
made to any party and any other terms and conditions of the 
settlement.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In almost every proceeding, all or a majority of the 
arbitrators considering an expungement request are public 
arbitrators. Among other requirements, public arbitrators have never 
been employed by the securities industry; do not devote 20 percent 
or more of their professional work to the securities industry or to 
parties in disputes concerning investment accounts or transactions 
or employment relationships within the financial industry; and do 
not have immediate family members or co-workers who do so. See FINRA 
Rule 12100(aa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, these rules require arbitrators to indicate whether 
they have awarded expungement because: (1) The claim, allegation or 
information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous; (2) the 
associated 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\ The arbitrators are further required to provide a brief 
written explanation of the reasons for recommending expungement.\10\ 
These requirements are supplemented with extensive guidance and 
training, including the Guidance, first published in 2013 and expanded 
further periodically thereafter.\11\ The Guidance provides arbitrators 
with best practices and recommendations to follow, in addition to the 
requirements of FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805, when deciding expungement 
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA Rules 2080, 12805 and 13805.
    \10\ Although FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805 state that the panel 
may ``grant'' expungement of customer dispute information under 
FINRA Rule 2080, the panel's decision regarding an expungement 
request is not the final step in the process. A person seeking 
expungement must obtain a court order confirming an arbitration 
award for FINRA to expunge the customer dispute information from the 
CRD system. Accordingly, FINRA believes the word ``recommend'' more 
accurately describes the panel's role in the expungement process. It 
has been FINRA's longstanding practice to state in expungement 
awards that the arbitrators ``recommend,'' rather than ``grant,'' 
expungement. See also infra note 132, and accompanying text (stating 
that the proposed amendments to FINRA Rules 12805(c) and 13805(c) 
would also provide that the panel would ``recommend'' rather than 
``grant'' expungement).
    \11\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of whether expungement of customer dispute information 
is sought directly through a court or in arbitration, FINRA Rule 2080, 
which was developed in close consultation with representatives of NASAA 
and state regulators, requires a broker-dealer firm or broker seeking 
expungement to obtain an order of a court of competent jurisdiction 
directing such expungement or confirming an award containing 
expungement. FINRA will expunge customer dispute information only after 
the court orders it to execute the expungement.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FINRA Rule 2080 also requires that firms and brokers 
seeking a court order or confirmation of the arbitration award 
containing expungement name FINRA as a party, and provides that 
FINRA will challenge the request in court in appropriate 
circumstances. FINRA may, however, waive the requirement to name it 
as a party if a firm or broker requests a waiver and FINRA 
determines that the award containing expungement is based on 
affirmative judicial or arbitral findings that: (1) The claim, 
allegation or information is factually impossible or clearly 
erroneous; (2) the associated 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. In addition, FINRA has sole 
discretion ``under extraordinary circumstances'' to waive the 
requirement that it be named in a court proceeding if it determines 
that the request for expungement and accompanying award are 
meritorious and expungement would not have a material adverse effect 
on investor protection, the integrity of the CRD system, or 
regulatory requirements. See FINRA Rule 2080(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Concerns Regarding Expungement
    Some stakeholders of the forum have raised concerns about 
expungement hearings held after the parties settle the customer 
arbitration that gave rise to the customer dispute information.\13\ In 
many of these instances, the panel from the customer arbitration has 
not heard the full merits of that case and, therefore, may not have any 
special insights in determining whether to recommend a request for 
expungement of customer dispute information. Further, customers and 
their representatives typically do not participate in an expungement 
hearing after the customer arbitration settles, especially if the 
expungement hearing occurs a number of years later.\14\ In addition, a 
broker may file a straight-in request against a member firm for the 
sole purpose of requesting expungement.\15\ In most of these straight-
in requests, the customer

[[Page 62144]]

dispute information arises from a customer arbitration or customer 
complaint that was disclosed on the broker's CRD record a number of 
years prior to the request.\16\ Thus, during these expungement 
hearings, the panel may receive information only from the associated 
person requesting expungement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In its Final Report and Recommendations, the FINRA Dispute 
Resolution Task Force (``Task Force'') included a recommendation to 
create a special arbitration panel consisting of specially trained 
arbitrators to decide expungement requests in settled cases and in 
cases when a claimant did not name the associated person as a 
respondent in the case. See http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Final-DR-task-force-report.pdf; see also letter from Barbara 
Black, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law 
(Retired), to Marcia Asquith, Office of the Corporate Secretary, 
FINRA, dated February 5, 2018 (``Black'') (discussing the Task 
Force's recommendation) and letter from Joseph Borg, President, 
NASAA, to Marcia Asquith, Office of the Corporate Secretary, FINRA, 
dated February 5, 2018 (``NASAA'') (commenting that post-settlement 
expungement hearings often consist of one-sided presentations of the 
facts). These and other letters responding to Regulatory Notice 17-
42 (December 2017) (``Notice 17-42'') are discussed in Item II.C. 
below.
    \14\ The Codes provide that no claim shall be eligible for 
submission to arbitration under the Codes where six years have 
elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim. The 
panel resolves any questions regarding the eligibility of a claim 
under this rule. See FINRA Rules 12206(a) and 13206(a) (Time 
Limitation on Submission of Claims). This six-year eligibility rule 
applies to all arbitration claims, including those requesting 
expungement. Thus, if an associated person requests expungement of a 
CRD disclosure where six years have elapsed since the customer 
complaint, arbitration or civil litigation was initially reported, 
the arbitrator or panel should consider whether the claim is 
eligible for arbitration.
    In addition, FINRA Rules 12409 and 13413 (Jurisdiction of Panel 
and Authority to Interpret the Code) provide that the panel has the 
authority to interpret and determine the applicability of all 
provisions under the Codes. Such interpretations are final and 
binding upon the parties. Together, the rules grant arbitrators the 
authority to decide whether a claim is eligible for arbitration 
under the Codes. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, 537 U.S. 79, 
85-86 (2002) (finding that an arbitrator properly decides issues of 
eligibility).
    Arbitrators should ensure that an expungement claim is eligible 
under the Codes and arbitrators may decide the eligibility issue on 
their own, rather than only in response to a party's motion. See 
Horst v. FINRA, No. A-18-777960-C (Dist. Ct. Nevada Oct. 25, 2018) 
(Order Denying Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award) (ruling that an 
arbitrator may raise sua sponte the eligibility issue, not only when 
a party to the arbitration raises it in a motion).
    \15\ Currently, on rare occasions, straight-in requests are 
filed against a customer. As discussed below, the proposed 
amendments would prohibit these filings. See infra Item 
II.A.1.(II)A.2., ``No Straight-in Requests Against Customers.''
    \16\ Several questions on Forms U4 and U5 require associated 
persons to disclose certain investment-related, consumer-initiated 
(i) complaints and (ii) arbitrations and civil litigations, alleging 
sales practice violations. See Form U4, Question 14I, available at 
https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/form-u4.pdf and Form U5, 
Question 7E, available at https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/form-u5.pdf. These disclosures become part of the associated 
person's CRD record and are made available on BrokerCheck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, FINRA is concerned that an increasing number of straight-
in requests are being heard by a single arbitrator instead of a three-
person panel.\17\ FINRA believes that most expungement requests should 
be decided by a three-person panel. Expungement requests may be complex 
to resolve, particularly straight-in requests where customers typically 
do not participate in the expungement hearing. Thus, having three 
arbitrators available to ask questions, request evidence and to serve 
generally as fact-finders in the absence of customer input would help 
ensure that a complete factual record is created to support the 
arbitrators' decision in such expungement hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ An expungement request is a non-monetary or not specified 
claim. The Codes require that such claims are heard by a panel of 
three arbitrators, unless the parties agree in writing to one 
arbitrator. In addition, if a party requesting expungement adds a 
small monetary claim (of less than $100,000) to the expungement 
request, the Codes require that such claims are heard by one 
arbitrator. See FINRA Rules 12401 and 13401. FINRA has amended the 
Codes to apply minimum fees to expungement requests, whether the 
request is made as part of the customer arbitration or the 
associated person files an expungement request in a separate 
arbitration. The amendments also apply a minimum process fee and 
member surcharge to straight-in requests, as well as a minimum 
hearing session fee to expungement-only hearings. See Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 88945 (May 26, 2020), 85 FR 33212 (June 1, 
2020) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2020-005). See also 
Regulatory Notice 20-25 (July 2020) (announcing a September 14, 2020 
effective date) at https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/20-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA is concerned that some associated persons are 
making second requests to expunge the same customer dispute information 
that they previously requested be expunged by a court or another 
arbitration panel. For example, an associated person may have a CRD 
disclosure that resulted from a customer's arbitration claim, but 
because the associated person is not named as a party to the customer 
arbitration (``unnamed person''),\18\ the associated person is not able 
to request expungement in the customer arbitration.\19\ When a firm 
asks, on-behalf-of the unnamed person, that the arbitrators recommend 
expungement, the unnamed person, as a non-party in the customer 
arbitration, may subsequently argue that he or she did not receive 
adequate notice of the expungement request or an opportunity to 
participate in the earlier proceeding. The unnamed person may then file 
a new claim to expunge the same disclosure that the firm requested on 
the unnamed person's behalf, despite the fact that the panel denied the 
expungement request in the prior matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In 2009, the SEC approved amendments to Forms U4 and U5 to 
require, among other things, the reporting of allegations of sales 
practice violations made against unnamed persons. See Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 59916 (May 13, 2009), 74 FR 23750 (May 20, 
2009) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2009-008). Specifically, 
Forms U4 and U5 were amended to add questions to elicit whether the 
applicant or registered person, though not named as a respondent or 
defendant in a customer-initiated arbitration, was either mentioned 
in or could be reasonably identified from the body of the 
arbitration claim as a registered person who was involved in one or 
more of the alleged sales practice violations.
    \19\ If a broker is not named as a party in the customer 
arbitration, brokers may seek to expunge customer dispute 
information by: (1) Asking a party to the arbitration, usually the 
firm, to request expungement on his or her behalf; (2) seeking to 
intervene in the customer arbitration; (3) initiating a new 
arbitration in which the unnamed person requests expungement and 
names the customer or firm as the respondent; or (4) going directly 
to court (without first going to arbitration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that re-filing an expungement request that has been 
denied by an arbitration panel undermines the integrity of the 
arbitration process and the information in the CRD system. Arbitration 
awards are final and binding on the parties. If an associated person 
seeks to challenge an arbitration award, the associated person can do 
so by filing a motion to vacate in court.
    In addition, some associated persons make second requests for 
expungement after withdrawing or deciding not to pursue an expungement 
request made in a customer arbitration, believing that another panel 
who has not heard the merits of the claim may be more likely to 
recommend expungement. FINRA is concerned about this practice of 
``arbitrator shopping,'' particularly when associated persons withdraw 
an original expungement request after the arbitration panel has been 
made aware of evidence that could result in the denial of the 
expungement request.
    On December 6, 2017, FINRA published Notice 17-42 \20\ to seek 
comment on a variety of changes to the process of arbitrating 
expungement requests, including establishing a roster of arbitrators 
with additional training and specific backgrounds or experience from 
which a panel would be selected to decide an associated person's 
request for expungement of customer dispute information. The 
arbitrators from this roster would decide straight-in requests. As 
discussed below in Item II.C., FINRA received 70 comment letters on 
Notice 17-42 that reflected a variety of perspectives and different 
suggestions regarding how to proceed. The proposed rule change is 
responsive to concerns raised by commenters and would include the 
following primary changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See http://www.finra.org/industry/notices/17-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [rtarr8] Expungement Requests in Customer Arbitrations
    [cir] An associated person named in a customer arbitration would be 
required to request expungement during the customer arbitration or 
forfeit the ability to request expungement of that same disclosure in 
any subsequent proceeding.
    [cir] A named party from a customer arbitration would be permitted 
to request expungement during the customer arbitration on-behalf-of an 
unnamed person pursuant to specified conditions and limitations.
    [cir] If a named associated person or party on-behalf-of an unnamed 
person requests expungement during the customer arbitration and the 
arbitration closes by award after a hearing,\21\ the panel from the 
customer arbitration would be required to decide the expungement 
request during the customer arbitration and issue a decision on the 
request in the award.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Under the Codes, a ``hearing'' means the hearing on the 
merits of the arbitration. See FINRA Rules 12100(o) and 13100(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] If a named associated person or party on-behalf-of an unnamed 
person requests expungement during the customer arbitration and the 
arbitration closes other than by award or by award without a hearing, 
an associated person may only pursue an expungement request by filing a 
straight-in request under the Industry Code against the member firm at 
which the associated person was associated at the time the dispute 
arose.
    [rtarr8] Expungement Requests Under the Industry Code
    [cir] All straight-in requests \22\ would be required to be filed 
under the Industry

[[Page 62145]]

Code against the member firm at which the associated person was 
associated at the time the dispute arose and decided by a panel 
selected from a roster of arbitrators with enhanced experience and 
training (``Special Arbitrator Roster'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ A straight-in request would include a request to expunge 
customer dispute information filed under the Industry Code: (1) By 
an associated person named in a customer arbitration after the 
customer arbitration closes other than by award or by award without 
a hearing; (2) arising from a customer complaint or civil litigation 
rather than a customer arbitration; or (3) by an associated person 
who was the subject of a customer arbitration, but unnamed, and 
where a named party in the customer arbitration did not request 
expungement on-behalf-of the unnamed associated person, or where a 
named party made an on-behalf-of request, but the customer 
arbitration closed other than by award or by award without a 
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [cir] If an associated person withdraws a straight-in request after 
a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster is appointed, the case would 
be closed with prejudice.
    [rtarr8] Special Arbitrator Roster
    [cir] A three-person panel selected from the Special Arbitrator 
Roster would decide straight-in requests.
    [cir] The parties would not be permitted to agree to fewer than 
three arbitrators from the Special Arbitrator Roster to decide 
straight-in requests.
    [cir] Arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster would be 
required to be public arbitrators who are eligible for the chairperson 
roster and who have fully met the following additional qualifications: 
(1) Evidenced successful completion of, and agreement with, enhanced 
expungement training provided by FINRA; and (2) service as an 
arbitrator through award on at least four customer-initiated 
arbitrations administered by FINRA or by another self-regulatory 
organization (``SRO'') in which a hearing was held.
    [cir] The Neutral List Selection System (``NLSS'') would randomly 
select the three public chairpersons from the Special Arbitrator Roster 
to decide straight-in requests. The first arbitrator selected would be 
the chair of the panel. The parties would not be permitted to stipulate 
to the use of pre-selected arbitrators.
    [cir] An associated person who files a straight-in request would 
not be permitted to strike any arbitrators selected by NLSS or 
stipulate to the arbitrator's removal, but would be permitted to 
challenge any arbitrator selected for cause. If an arbitrator is 
removed, NLSS would randomly select a replacement.
    [rtarr8] Time Limitations on Requests for Expungement
    [cir] For customer dispute information reported to the CRD system 
after the effective date of the proposed rule change, the proposal 
would provide that an associated person would be barred from requesting 
expungement if: (1) More than two years have elapsed since the close of 
the customer arbitration or civil litigation that gave rise to the 
customer dispute information; or (2) there was no customer arbitration 
or civil litigation involving the customer dispute information, and 
more than six years have elapsed since the date that the customer 
complaint was initially reported to the CRD system.
    [cir] For customer dispute information reported to the CRD system 
before the effective date of the proposed rule change, the proposal 
would require an associated person to request expungement as a 
straight-in request under the Industry Code: (1) Within two years of 
the effective date of the proposed rule change for disclosures that 
arose from a customer arbitration or civil litigation that closed on or 
prior to the effective date; and (2) within six years of the effective 
date of the proposed rule change for customer complaints initially 
reported to the CRD system on or prior to the effective date.
    [rtarr8] Expungement Requests During a Simplified Arbitration
    [cir] If a party requests expungement during a simplified 
arbitration, the single arbitrator in the simplified arbitration would 
be required to decide the expungement request, regardless of how the 
simplified arbitration case closes (e.g., even if the case settles).
    [cir] If an associated person does not request expungement during 
the simplified arbitration, the request may be filed as a straight-in 
request under the Industry Code against the member firm at which the 
associated person was associated at the time the dispute arose, and be 
decided by a three-person panel randomly selected from the Special 
Arbitrator Roster.
    [rtarr8] Expungement Hearings
    [cir] Establish procedural requirements that arbitrators and 
parties must follow for expungement hearings.
    [rtarr8] State and Customer Notifications
    [cir] Establish requirements for notifying state securities 
regulators and customers of expungement requests.
    Under the proposed rule change, an associated person would only be 
permitted to seek expungement of customer dispute information in the 
arbitration forum administered by FINRA by complying with the 
requirements of proposed Rules 12805 (expungement requests in a 
customer arbitration), 13805 (straight-in requests under the Industry 
Code) or 12800(d) (expungement requests in a simplified customer 
arbitration).
    The proposed rule change, as revised in response to comments on 
Notice 17-42, is set forth in further detail below.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The proposed rule change would apply to 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(II) Proposed Rule Change
    The discussion below of the proposed rule change is divided into 
six areas: (A) Requests for expungement under the Customer Code; (B) 
straight-in requests under the Industry Code and the Special Arbitrator 
Roster; (C) limitations on expungement requests; (D) procedural 
requirements related to all expungement hearings; (E) notifications to 
customers and states regarding expungement requests; and (F) 
expungement requests during simplified customer arbitrations.
A. Requests for Expungement Under the Customer Code
    FINRA Rule 12805 provides a list of requirements that arbitrators 
must meet before they may recommend expungement.\24\ The rule does not, 
however, provide guidance for associated persons on how and when they 
may request expungement during the customer arbitration, or on when 
arbitrators must make expungement determinations. The proposed rule 
change would amend FINRA Rule 12805 to set forth requirements for 
expungement requests filed by an associated person during a customer 
arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ FINRA Rule 12805 provides that a panel must comply with the 
following criteria before recommending expungement: (1) Hold a 
recorded hearing to decide the issue of expungement; (2) review 
settlement documents, and consider the amount of payments made to 
any party and any other terms and conditions of the settlement; (3) 
indicate in the award which of the grounds in FINRA Rule 2080 is the 
basis for expungement and provide a brief written explanation of the 
reasons for recommending expungement; and (4) assess all forum fees 
for hearing sessions in which the sole topic is the determination of 
the appropriateness of expungement against the parties requesting 
expungement. See also FINRA Rule 13805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Expungement Requests During the Customer Arbitration
a. By a Respondent Named in a Customer Arbitration
    Under current practice, an associated person who is named as a 
respondent in a customer arbitration (``named associated person'') may 
request expungement at any time during the customer arbitration or 
separately from the customer arbitration in a straight-in request.\25\ 
If a named associated person

[[Page 62146]]

requests expungement during the customer arbitration, does not withdraw 
the request and the case goes to hearing and closes by award, the panel 
in the customer arbitration will also decide the expungement request 
and include the decision as part of the customer's award.\26\ If the 
customer arbitration does not close by award after a hearing (e.g., 
settles), and the associated person continues to pursue the expungement 
request, the panel from the customer arbitration may hold an 
expungement-only hearing as required by FINRA Rule 12805 to decide the 
expungement request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ There are several ways in which a named associated person 
may request expungement during a customer arbitration. The request 
may be included in the answer to the statement of claim that must be 
submitted within 45 days of receipt of the statement of claim, and 
may include other claims and remedies requested. See FINRA Rules 
12303(a) and (b); see also FINRA Rules 13303(a) and (b). The 
expungement request may also be included in other pleadings (e.g., a 
counterclaim, a cross claim, or a third party claim) and must be 
filed with the Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution 
(``Director'') through the Party Portal. See FINRA Rules 12100(x) 
and 12300(b). The associated person may also request at any time 
during the case (outside of a pleading) that the panel consider the 
person's expungement request during the hearing. Under FINRA Rule 
12503, such a request is treated like a motion, which gives the 
other parties an opportunity to object. If there is an objection, 
the panel must decide the motion pursuant to FINRA Rule 12503(d)(5). 
See also FINRA Rules 13503 and 13503(d)(5).
    \26\ Under the Codes, a customer's or claimant's damage request 
determines whether a single arbitrator or a three-person panel will 
consider and decide an arbitration case. See FINRA Rules 12401 and 
13401. For ease of reference, when discussing expungement requests 
during customer arbitrations under proposed Rule 12805, unless 
otherwise specified, the rule filing uses the term ``panel'' to mean 
either a panel or single arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, if a named associated person seeks 
to request expungement of customer dispute information arising from the 
customer's statement of claim, the named associated person must make 
the expungement request during the customer arbitration.\27\ As 
discussed below, the request would be subject to limitations on how and 
when the request may be made.\28\ In addition, the Director would be 
authorized to deny the forum to expungement requests during a customer 
arbitration that do not arise out of the customer arbitration.\29\ If 
the associated person does not request expungement during the customer 
arbitration, he or she would forfeit the opportunity to seek 
expungement of the same customer dispute information in any subsequent 
proceeding.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(A).
    \28\ See also infra Item II.A.1.(II)C., ``Limitations on 
Expungement Requests.''
    \29\ See proposed Rules 12203(b) and 12805(a).
    \30\ See proposed Rule 12805(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing to require that a named associated person 
request expungement during the customer arbitration because, if the 
arbitration closes by award after a hearing, the panel from the 
customer arbitration will be best situated to decide the related issue 
of expungement. Requiring the named associated person to request 
expungement in the customer arbitration increases the likelihood that a 
panel will have input from all parties and access to all of the 
evidence, testimony and other documents to make an informed decision on 
the expungement request.
    FINRA recognizes that this requirement could result in some named 
associated persons filing expungement requests to preserve their right 
to make a request, regardless of the potential outcome. FINRA believes 
that the potential costs that would be incurred by associated persons, 
arbitrators and the forum if named associated persons file expungement 
requests to preserve the ability to request expungement are appropriate 
given the potential benefit of having customer input and a complete 
factual record for the panel to decide an expungement request. In 
addition, certain aspects of the proposed rule change may limit the 
filing of requests without regard to the potential outcome. For 
example, under the proposed rule change, named associated persons would 
be permitted to request expungement no later than 30 days before the 
first scheduled hearing.\31\ This proposed amendment would provide the 
named associated person with a reasonable amount of time to consider, 
likely after receiving any discovery from the claimant, whether to file 
the request because it could meet one or more of the FINRA Rule 
2080(b)(1) grounds for expungement.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C); see also infra Item 
II.A.1.(II)A.1.a.i., ``Method of Requesting Expungement.''
    \32\ In addition, FINRA notes that the SEC has approved changes 
to FINRA rules to apply minimum fees to expungement requests. See 
supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Method of Requesting Expungement
    The proposed rule change would limit how and when expungement 
requests may be made during the customer arbitration. Under the 
proposed rule change, if a named associated person requests expungement 
during the customer arbitration, the request must be included in the 
answer or a pleading requesting expungement.\33\ If the request is 
included in the answer, it must be filed within 45 days of receipt of 
the customer's statement of claim in accordance with existing 
requirements under the Codes.\34\ If the named associated person 
requests expungement in a pleading requesting expungement, the request 
must be filed no later than 30 days before the first scheduled hearing 
begins.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C)(i).
    \34\ See supra note 25.
    \35\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes the proposed rule change would provide a reasonable 
amount of time for the requesting party to make an informed decision 
about whether to request expungement while also providing the parties 
with reasonable case-preparation time, since the expungement issues 
will overlap with the issues raised by the customer's claim.
    In addition, the proposed filing deadline would provide the 
Director a reasonable amount of time to notify state securities 
regulators of the expungement request.\36\ If a named associated person 
seeks to request expungement after the 30-day filing deadline, the 
panel would be required to decide whether to grant an extension and 
permit the request or whether to deny the request for expungement.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See proposed Rule 12805(b); see also infra Item 
II.A.1.(II)E.3., ``State Notification of Expungement Requests.''
    \37\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C). The proposed amendments 
would provide that if the expungement request is not filed in a 
pleading no later than 30 days before the first scheduled hearing, 
then FINRA Rule 12309(b) would require the associated person to file 
a motion pursuant to FINRA Rule 12503, seeking an extension of the 
30-day deadline to file the expungement request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Required Contents of an Expungement Request
    Under the proposed rule change, a request for expungement by a 
named associated person in a customer arbitration must include the 
applicable filing fee under the Codes.\38\ In addition, a named 
associated person would be required to provide the CRD number of the 
party requesting expungement, each CRD occurrence number that is the 
subject of the request and the case name and docket number that gave 
rise to the disclosure, if applicable.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C)(ii)a.; see also supra note 
17.
    \39\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C)(ii)b.-d. An occurrence is 
a disclosure event that is reported to the CRD system via one or 
more Disclosure Reporting Pages. Each occurrence contains details 
regarding a specific disclosure event. An occurrence can have as 
many as three sources reporting the same event: Forms U4, U5 and U6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also require the party requesting 
expungement to explain whether expungement of the same customer dispute 
information was (i) previously requested and, if so (ii) how it was

[[Page 62147]]

decided.\40\ This requirement would assist with implementation of the 
proposed prohibition on parties making second requests for expungement, 
discussed in more detail below.\41\ This proposed requirement is also 
consistent with language in the existing Guidance stating that 
arbitrators should ask a party requesting expungement whether an 
arbitration panel or a court previously denied expungement of the 
customer dispute information at issue and, if there was a prior denial, 
to deny the expungement request.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C)(ii)e.
    \41\ See infra Item II.A.1.(II)A.1.b.i., ``Method of Requesting 
Expungement On-Behalf-Of an Unnamed Person.''
    \42\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, if an expungement request fails to 
include any of the proposed requirements for requesting expungement, 
the request would be considered deficient and would not be served 
unless the deficiency is corrected.\43\ These requirements would help 
ensure that FINRA, the panel and the parties understand who is 
requesting expungement and which disclosure is the subject of the 
request. Further, if the disclosure arose from a customer arbitration, 
the case name and docket number would provide the panel that is 
considering the expungement request with information about the dispute 
that gave rise to the disclosure that the party is seeking to expunge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See proposed Rule 12307(a)(8)-(11) (setting forth reasons a 
claim may be deficient).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes these proposed requirements for parties requesting 
expungement are necessary for the timely and orderly consideration of 
expungement requests as well as to maintain the integrity of the data 
in the CRD system.
b. Expungement Requests by a Party Named in the Customer Arbitration 
On-Behalf-Of an Unnamed Person
    The Codes do not specifically address expungement requests by a 
party named in a customer arbitration on-behalf-of an unnamed 
person.\44\ Under current practice, a party to a customer arbitration 
may file an on-behalf-of request for expungement during the customer 
arbitration. If the party (typically, a firm) files the request and the 
customer arbitration closes by award after a hearing, the panel will 
decide the expungement request and include the decision in the award. 
If the customer arbitration does not close by award after a hearing 
(e.g., settles), either the requesting party or the unnamed person 
could ask the panel to consider and decide the expungement request 
before it disbands. In this circumstance, the panel from the customer 
arbitration will hold a separate expungement-only hearing to decide the 
expungement request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The proposed rule change would define an unnamed person as 
``an associated person, including a formerly associated person, who 
is identified in a Form U4, Form U5, or Form U6, as having been the 
subject of an investment-related, customer-initiated arbitration 
claim that alleged that the associated person or formerly associated 
person was involved in one or more sales practice violations, but 
who was not named as a respondent in the arbitration claim.'' See 
proposed Rule 12100(ff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would codify the ability of a party in the 
customer arbitration to file an on-behalf-of request during a customer 
arbitration.\45\ Under the proposed rule change, a party to a customer 
arbitration may file an on-behalf-of request that seeks to expunge 
customer dispute information arising from the customer's statement of 
claim, provided the request is eligible for arbitration under proposed 
Rule 12805.\46\ Filing an on-behalf-of request would be permissive, not 
mandatory.\47\ However, as discussed below, if the named party and the 
unnamed person agree to such a request, FINRA would require them to 
sign a form consenting to the on-behalf-of request which would help 
ensure that the unnamed person is fully aware of the request and that 
the firm is agreeing to represent the unnamed person for the purpose of 
requesting expungement during the customer arbitration.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(2).
    \46\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(2)(B).
    \47\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(2)(A).
    \48\ A customer complaint can be reported to the CRD system via 
a Form U4 or Form U5. Pursuant to FINRA Rule 1010, an associated 
person should be made aware of the filing of a Form U4 and any 
amendments thereto by the associated person's member firm. In 
addition, Article V, Section 3 of the FINRA By-Laws of the 
Corporation requires that a member firm provide an associated person 
a copy of an amended Form U5, including one reporting a customer 
complaint involving the associated person. FINRA also provides 
several methods for associated persons and former associated persons 
to check their records (e.g., by requesting an Individual CRD 
Snapshot or online through BrokerCheck).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Method of Requesting Expungement On-Behalf-Of an Unnamed Person
    The unnamed person would be required to consent to the on-behalf-of 
request in writing.\49\ In particular, the party filing an on-behalf-of 
request would be required to submit a signed Form Requesting 
Expungement on Behalf of an Unnamed Person (``Form'') and a statement 
requesting expungement with the Director.\50\ The proposed rule change 
would not require that an on-behalf-of request be included in an answer 
or pleading requesting expungement (although it could be), since the 
request seeks relief on-behalf-of a person who is not a party to the 
arbitration. However, the party making the request would be required to 
serve the request, which would include the Form, on all parties no 
later than 30 days before the first scheduled hearing.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(2)(A).
    \50\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(2)(C)(ii). The unnamed person 
whose CRD record would be expunged and the party requesting 
expungement on the unnamed person's behalf must sign the Form.
    \51\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(2)(C)(iii). The 30-day deadline 
is the same as the proposed deadline for a named associated person 
to request expungement in a customer arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that requiring submission of the Form would help 
address the issue of an unnamed person not being notified of the on-
behalf-of request. As discussed above, FINRA is concerned that some 
associated persons are filing arbitration claims seeking expungement of 
the same customer dispute information that was the subject of a 
previous denial by a panel of an on-behalf-of request. By signing the 
Form, the unnamed person would be consenting to the on-behalf-of 
request and agreeing to be bound by the panel's decision on the 
request.\52\ In addition, the Form would provide that, if the customer 
arbitration closes by award after a hearing, the unnamed person would 
be barred from filing a request for expungement for the same customer 
dispute information in a subsequent proceeding, and the unnamed 
person's signature would serve as acknowledgement of this consequence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ By signing the Form, the unnamed person would also be 
agreeing to maintain the confidentiality of documents and 
information from the customer arbitration to which the unnamed 
person is given access and to adhere to any confidentiality 
agreements or orders associated with the customer arbitration. See 
proposed Rule 12805(a)(2)(D). Failure of the unnamed person to 
comply with this provision could subject the unnamed person to a 
claim for damages by an aggrieved party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Required Contents of an On-Behalf-Of Expungement Request
    Under the proposed rule change, an on-behalf-of request would be 
required to include the same elements as a request for expungement by a 
named associated person during a customer arbitration.\53\ Thus, the 
party requesting expungement on-behalf-of an unnamed person (typically, 
the firm) would be required to provide the applicable filing fee, the 
CRD number of the unnamed person, each CRD occurrence number that is 
the subject of the request and the

[[Page 62148]]

case name and docket number that gave rise to the disclosure, if 
applicable. In addition, as discussed above, the party requesting 
expungement would be required to include the Form, signed by the 
unnamed person whose CRD record would be expunged and the party filing 
the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C)(ii); see also supra Item 
II.A.1.(II)A.1.a.ii., ``Required Contents of an Expungement 
Request.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Deciding Expungement Requests During Customer Arbitrations
    The proposed amendments would require that if there is a request 
for expungement by a named associated person or on-behalf-of an unnamed 
person during a customer arbitration, the panel from the customer 
arbitration must decide the expungement request if the customer 
arbitration closes by award after a hearing.\54\ If the customer 
arbitration closes other than by award (e.g., settles) or by award 
without a hearing, the panel would not consider the expungement 
request.\55\ Instead, the associated person would have the option of 
filing a request to expunge the same customer dispute information as a 
new claim under proposed Rule 13805 against the member firm at which he 
or she was associated at the time the customer dispute arose.\56\ A 
panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster would decide such an 
expungement request, as discussed in more detail below.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(D)(i) and (a)(2)(E)(i).
    \55\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(D)(ii) and (a)(2)(E)(ii).
    \56\ See supra note 54. Under the Codes, a ``member'' includes 
any broker or dealer admitted to membership in FINRA, whether or not 
the membership has been terminated, suspended, cancelled, revoked, 
the member has been expelled or barred from FINRA or the member is 
otherwise defunct. See FINRA Rules 12100(s) and 13100(q); see also 
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88254 (February 20, 2020), 85 FR 
11157 (February 26, 2020) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2019-
027).
    \57\ See infra Item II.A.1.(II)B.2., ``Panel from the Special 
Arbitrator Roster Decides Requests Filed Under the Industry Code.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Panel Decides the Expungement Request if the Customer's Claim Closes 
by Award After a Hearing
    Currently, if a named associated person requests expungement, or a 
party files an on-behalf-of request, and the customer's claim closes by 
award after a hearing, the panel may consider and decide the 
expungement request during the customer arbitration and issue its 
decision in the award. If, however, the party requesting expungement 
does not raise the issue of expungement during the hearing, the panel 
will not decide the request and may deem it withdrawn without 
prejudice.\58\ In this instance, the associated person has the option 
to file the request again at a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See FINRA Rules 12702 and 13702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, if, during the customer 
arbitration, a named associated person requests expungement or a party 
files an on-behalf-of request, and the customer's claim closes by award 
after a hearing, the panel in the customer arbitration would be 
required to consider and decide the request for expungement during the 
customer arbitration and issue a decision on the expungement request in 
the award.\59\ The panel would be required to decide the request even 
if the requesting party withdraws the request or fails to present a 
case in support of the request. In this instance, the panel must deny 
the expungement request with prejudice.\60\ This requirement would 
foreclose the ability of associated persons to withdraw expungement 
requests to avoid having their requests decided by the panel who heard 
the evidence on the customer's arbitration claim, and then seeking to 
re-file the request and receive a new list of arbitrators and a 
potentially more favorable decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(D)(i) and 12805(a)(2)(E)(i).
    \60\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(D)(i) and 12805(a)(2)(E)(i). 
A party requesting expungement on-behalf-of an unnamed person may 
withdraw or not pursue an expungement request only with the written 
consent of the unnamed person. Under such circumstances, the panel 
would deny the expungement request with prejudice. See proposed Rule 
12805(a)(2)(E)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Panel Does Not Decide Expungement if the Customer's Claim Closes 
Other Than by Award or by Award Without a Hearing
    Currently, if a named associated person requests expungement or a 
party files an on-behalf-of request and the customer arbitration does 
not close by award after a hearing (e.g., settles) and the associated 
person or requesting party, if it is an on-behalf-of request, continues 
to pursue the expungement request, the panel from the customer 
arbitration will hold a separate expungement-only hearing to consider 
and decide the expungement request. If the named associated person or 
party requesting expungement does not request that the panel hold a 
separate, expungement-only hearing, the panel may deem the request 
withdrawn without prejudice, and the associated person has the option 
to file the request again at a later date.
    The proposed rule change would provide that if, during a customer 
arbitration, a named associated person requests expungement or a party 
files an on-behalf-of request and the customer arbitration closes other 
than by award or by award without a hearing, the panel from the 
customer arbitration would not be permitted to decide the expungement 
request.\61\ Instead, the associated person would be required to seek 
expungement by filing a request to expunge the same customer dispute 
information as a straight-in request under proposed Rule 13805, where a 
panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster would decide the request.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(D)(ii)a. and 
12805(a)(2)(E)(ii)a.
    \62\ See infra Item II.A.1.(II)B.2., ``Panel from the Special 
Arbitrator Roster Decides Requests Filed Under the Industry Code.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, expungement requests may be complex to resolve, 
particularly straight-in requests where customers typically do not 
participate in the expungement hearing. Thus, having three arbitrators 
available to ask questions, request evidence and to serve generally as 
fact-finders in the absence of customer input would help ensure that a 
complete factual record is created to support the arbitrators' decision 
in such expungement hearings.
    FINRA believes this is the right approach because the panel 
selected by the parties in the customer arbitration has not heard the 
full merits of the case and, therefore, may not bring to bear any 
special insights in determining whether to recommend expungement. In 
addition, customers or their representative have little incentive to 
participate in an expungement hearing once their case has settled. 
Requiring that an associated person file the expungement request as a 
straight-in request under the Industry Code to be heard and decided by 
a three-person panel selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster would 
strengthen the expungement framework. As discussed in more detail 
below, this corps of specially trained arbitrators would follow the 
procedures set forth in proposed Rule 13805 and make a decision about 
whether FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1) grounds exist to recommend expungement, 
keeping in mind the importance of maintaining the integrity of 
information in the CRD system.
2. No Straight-In Requests Against Customers
    The proposed amendments would prohibit an associated person from 
filing a straight-in request against a customer.\63\ Currently, 
straight-in requests are rarely filed against a customer.\64\ FINRA 
does not believe that

[[Page 62149]]

customers should be compelled to participate in a separate proceeding 
to decide an expungement request after the customer has resolved his or 
her arbitration claim or civil litigation, or submitted his or her 
customer complaint. Accordingly, the proposed amendments would prohibit 
an associated person from filing a straight-in request against a 
customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(D)(ii)c. and 
12805(a)(2)(E)(ii)c.
    \64\ From January 2016 through June 2019, FINRA is able to 
identify 5,718 requests to expunge customer dispute information. Of 
those, 3,114 were filed as straight-in requests; 66 of the straight-
in requests were filed solely against a customer. See infra Item 
II.B.2., ``Economic Baseline.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. No Intervening in Customer Arbitrations To Request Expungement
    The proposed amendments would also prohibit unnamed persons from 
intervening in a customer arbitration and requesting expungement.\65\ 
If the associated person is neither a party to the arbitration nor the 
subject of an on-behalf-of request by another party to the arbitration, 
the associated person should not be able to intervene in the customers' 
arbitration to request expungement. In these circumstances, the 
associated person's conduct is unlikely to be fully addressed by the 
parties during the customer arbitration, and FINRA does not believe 
that the customer should have the presentation of their case 
interrupted by an associated person's intervention to request 
expungement. In addition, there have been instances in customer 
arbitrations in which the unnamed person learns that the customer's 
arbitration case is nearing conclusion. The associated person (or his 
or her representative) then files a motion to intervene in the case to 
ask the panel to consider recommending expungement. As an unnamed 
person, the individual is not a party to the case and, therefore, has 
not made any arguments in support of the expungement request. Further, 
if the motion is granted, the parties to the case will be required to 
wait for a decision on the expungement request (which may necessitate 
another hearing) before their dispute is resolved, causing delay and 
additional cost to the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(2)(E)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, under the proposed rule change, associated persons 
would be prohibited from intervening in a customer arbitration and 
requesting expungement. Instead, the unnamed person would have the 
option to file the request as a new claim under proposed Rule 13805, 
where a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster would decide the 
request.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See infra Item II.A.1.(II)B.2., ``Panel from the Special 
Arbitrator Roster Decides Requests Filed Under the Industry Code.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Straight-In Requests and the Special Arbitrator Roster
    Under the proposed rule change, all requests to expunge disclosures 
arising from customer complaints or civil litigations would be required 
to be made as straight-in requests under proposed Rule 13805.\67\ In 
addition, an associated person could request expungement of customer 
dispute information arising from a customer arbitration under proposed 
Rule 13805 if: (1) The associated person is named in the arbitration or 
is the subject of an on-behalf-of request and the customer arbitration 
closes other than by award or by award without a hearing; or (2) the 
associated person is the subject of a customer arbitration, but is 
neither named in the arbitration nor the subject of an on-behalf-of 
request, and the customer arbitration closes for any reason. If an 
associated person requests expungement under proposed Rule 13805, a 
three-person panel selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster in 
accordance with proposed Rule 13806, would decide the expungement 
request.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(1).
    \68\ See infra Item II.A.1.(II)B.2.a. and b. (discussing 
eligibility requirements for and composition of the Special 
Arbitrator Roster).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Filing a Straight-In Request Under the Industry Code
a. Applicability
    Under the proposed rule change, an associated person requesting 
expungement of customer dispute information under the Industry Code 
must make a straight-in request by filing a statement of claim in 
accordance with FINRA Rule 13302 against a member firm at which he or 
she was associated at the time the customer dispute arose, unless the 
request is ineligible for arbitration under proposed Rule 
13805(a)(2).\69\ Thus, the only way to request expungement of customer 
dispute information under the Industry Code would be to file the 
request under proposed Rule 13805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(1). FINRA Rule 13302 provides, 
in relevant part, that to initiate an arbitration, a claimant must 
file with the Director a signed and dated Submission Agreement, and 
a statement of claim specifying the relevant facts and remedies 
requested through the Party Portal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that the associated person file the straight-in 
request against the member firm at which he or she was associated at 
the time the customer dispute arose would help ensure that there is a 
connection between the respondent firm and the subject of the 
expungement request. For example, the firm at which the person 
requesting expungement was associated at the time the dispute arose 
should have knowledge of the dispute and access to documents or other 
evidence relating to the dispute. In addition, the proposed requirement 
would help ensure that the panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster 
would be able to request evidence from a member firm with information 
that is relevant to the expungement request. If the requisite 
connection is not present, the Director would be authorized to deny the 
forum to the request.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See proposed Rule 13203(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Required Contents of Straight-In Requests
    The required contents of a straight-in request would be the same as 
those required for expungement requests filed under proposed Rule 
12805.\71\ Thus, the associated person's straight-in request would be 
required to contain the applicable filing fee; \72\ the CRD number of 
the party requesting expungement; each CRD occurrence number that is 
the subject of the request; the case name and docket number that gave 
rise to the disclosure, if applicable; and an explanation of whether 
expungement of the same customer dispute information was previously 
requested and, if so, how it was decided.\73\ In addition, as discussed 
below, the proposed rule change would impose limitations on when such 
requests may be made.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See supra Item II.A.1.(II)A.1.a.ii., ``Required Contents of 
an Expungement Request.''
    \72\ FINRA would not assess a second filing fee when an 
associated person files a straight-in request if the associated 
person or the requesting party in the case of an on-behalf-of 
request, had previously paid the filing fee to request expungement 
of the same customer dispute information during a customer 
arbitration.
    \73\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(3).
    \74\ See infra Item II.A.1.(II)C., ``Limitations on Expungement 
Requests.'' As discussed in more detail below in Item II.A.1.(II)C., 
the straight-in request would be ineligible for arbitration under 
the Industry Code if: (1) A panel held a hearing to consider the 
merits of the associated person's request for expungement of the 
same customer dispute information; (2) a court previously denied the 
associated person's request to expunge the same customer dispute 
information; (3) the customer arbitration, civil litigation or 
customer complaint that gave rise to the customer dispute 
information is not concluded; (4) more than two years has elapsed 
since the customer arbitration or civil litigation that gave rise to 
the customer dispute information has closed; or (5) there was no 
customer arbitration or civil litigation that gave rise to the 
customer dispute information and more than six years has elapsed 
since the date that the customer complaint was initially reported to 
the CRD system. See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Panel From the Special Arbitrator Roster Decides Requests Filed 
Under the Industry Code
    If a straight-in request is filed in accordance with proposed Rule 
13805, a three-person panel selected from the

[[Page 62150]]

Special Arbitrator Roster pursuant to proposed Rule 13806 would be 
required to hold an expungement hearing, decide the expungement request 
and issue an award.\75\ The proposed amendments would also provide that 
if the associated person withdraws or does not pursue the request, the 
panel would be required to deny the expungement request with 
prejudice.\76\ This requirement would foreclose the ability of 
associated persons to withdraw expungement requests to avoid having 
their requests decided by the panel, and then seeking to re-file the 
request with the hope of obtaining a potentially more favorable panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(4).
    \76\ See supra note 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would include several requirements to help 
ensure that arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster have the 
qualifications and training to decide straight-in requests.
a. Eligibility Requirements for the Special Arbitrator Roster
    Arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster would be public 
arbitrators who are eligible for the chairperson roster.\77\ Public 
arbitrators are not employed in the securities industry and do not 
devote 20 percent or more of their professional work to the securities 
industry or to parties in disputes concerning investment accounts or 
transactions or employment relationships within the financial 
industry.\78\ Arbitrators are eligible for the chairperson roster if 
they have completed chairperson training provided by FINRA and: (1) 
Have a law degree and are a member of a bar of at least one 
jurisdiction and have served as an arbitrator through award on at least 
one arbitration administered by an SRO in which hearings were held; or 
(2) have served as an arbitrator through award on at least three 
arbitrations administered by an SRO in which hearings were held.\79\ 
These requirements would help ensure that the persons conducting the 
expungement hearing are impartial and experienced in managing and 
conducting arbitration hearings in the forum.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See proposed Rule 13806(b); see also FINRA Rule 12400(c).
    \78\ See supra note 8.
    \79\ See FINRA Rule 12400(c). For purposes of this proposed rule 
change, public arbitrators who are eligible for the chairperson 
roster would include those arbitrators who have met the chairperson 
eligibility requirements of FINRA Rule 12400(c), regardless of 
whether they have already served as a chair on an arbitration case.
    \80\ The Task Force suggested that the arbitrators on its 
recommended special arbitration panel be chair-qualified, in part 
because of the training that arbitrators must complete before they 
can be added to the chairperson roster. See FINRA's ``Advanced 
Arbitrator Training,'' available at https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/advanced-arbitrator-training. See also supra 
note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the public chairpersons must have evidenced successful 
completion of, and agreement with, enhanced expungement training 
provided by FINRA.\81\ FINRA currently provides an Expungement Training 
module for arbitrators.\82\ This training, however, would be expanded 
for arbitrators seeking to qualify for the Special Arbitrator Roster. 
This would allow FINRA to further emphasize, with the subset of 
arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster, the unique, distinct role 
they play in deciding whether to recommend a request to expunge 
customer dispute information from a broker's CRD record, and that 
expungement should be granted in limited circumstances and only if one 
or more of the grounds in FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1) is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(2)(A).
    \82\ See supra note 80. FINRA requires arbitrators to take 
mandatory online training that focuses on the Guidance. In addition, 
among other tools, FINRA provides Neutral Workshops (an online 
discussion on specific arbitration topics) and articles in The 
Neutral Corner (a quarterly publication that provides arbitrators 
and mediators with updates on important rules and procedures within 
the FINRA arbitration forum) to keep arbitrators informed about the 
expungement process and to emphasize the critical role that 
arbitrators play in maintaining the relevancy and integrity of 
disclosure information in the CRD system and BrokerCheck. See 
Neutral Workshop Audio and Video Files, Spring 2019 Neutral 
Workshop: Expungement of Customer Dispute Information, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/neutral-workshop-audio-and-video-files; The Neutral Corner, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/neutral-corner-view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed amendments, arbitrators on the Special 
Arbitrator Roster would also be required to have served as an 
arbitrator through award on at least four customer-initiated 
arbitrations administered by FINRA or by another SRO in which a hearing 
was held.\83\ FINRA believes that if an arbitrator has served on four 
arbitrations through to award, it would indicate that the arbitrator 
has gained the knowledge and experience in the forum to conduct 
hearings.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(2)(B). The hearing requirement 
would exclude hearings conducted under the special proceeding option 
of the simplified arbitration rules. See FINRA Rule 12800(c)(3)(B).
    \84\ In 2019, 85 percent of FINRA customer arbitrations closed 
other than by award. See Dispute Resolution Statistics, ``How 
Arbitration Cases Close,'' available at https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/dispute-resolution-statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Composition of the Panel
    The proposed amendments would require that three randomly-selected 
members of the Special Arbitrator Roster decide all expungement 
requests filed under proposed Rule 13805.\85\ As discussed above, 
expungement requests may be complex to resolve, particularly straight-
in requests where customers typically do not participate in the 
expungement hearing. Thus, having three arbitrators available to ask 
questions, request evidence and generally to serve as fact-finders in 
the absence of customer input would help ensure that a complete factual 
record is created to support the arbitrators' decision in such 
expungement hearings.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(1).
    \86\ See supra Item II.A.1.(I)C., ``Concerns Regarding 
Expungement'' (discussing the importance of having a three-person 
panel decide straight-in requests).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To minimize the potential for party influence in the arbitrator 
selection process, the proposed rule change would require NLSS randomly 
to select the three public chairpersons from the Special Arbitrator 
Roster to decide an expungement request filed by an associated 
person.\87\ The parties would not be permitted to agree to fewer than 
three arbitrators. The associated person would not be permitted to 
strike any arbitrators selected by NLSS nor stipulate to their 
removal,\88\ but would be permitted to challenge any arbitrator 
selected for cause.\89\ If an arbitrator is removed, NLSS would 
randomly select a replacement.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(1). The first arbitrator 
selected would be the chair of the panel. See proposed Rule 
13806(b)(3).
    \88\ The parties also would not be permitted to stipulate to the 
use of pre-selected arbitrators (i.e., arbitrators that the parties 
find on their own to use in their cases). See proposed Rule 
13806(b)(1).
    \89\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(4). In addition, before the 
first hearing session begins, the Director may remove an arbitrator 
for conflict of interest or bias, either upon request of a party or 
on the Director's own initiative. See FINRA Rule 12407(a).
    \90\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(4); see also FINRA Rules 
12402(g) and 12403(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that the current process for selecting arbitrators--
striking and combining ranked lists--would not be appropriate to use to 
select arbitrators to decide straight-in requests.\91\ In arbitrations 
outside of the expungement context, the parties are typically adverse, 
which means that during arbitrator selection, each side may rank 
arbitrators on the lists whom they believe may be favorable to their 
case.\92\ The adversarial nature of the proceedings serves to minimize 
the impact of each party's influence in arbitrator selection.\93\ In 
contrast, a

[[Page 62151]]

straight-in request filed by an associated person against a firm may 
not be adversarial in nature. In addition, typically the customer or 
customer's representative will not appear at the expungement hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See generally FINRA Rules 12402 and 12403.
    \92\ See infra note 189.
    \93\ Once the parties have ranked the arbitrators, the Director 
creates a combined ranked list of arbitrators based on the parties' 
numerical rankings. The Director appoints the highest-ranked 
available arbitrator from the combined list. See FINRA Rules 
12402(e) and (f) and 12403(d) and (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA recognizes that the proposed arbitrator selection process for 
straight-in requests would limit the associated person and member 
firm's input on arbitration selection. However, the arbitrators on the 
Special Arbitrator Roster would have the experience, qualifications and 
training necessary to conduct a fair and impartial expungement hearing 
in accordance with the proposed rules, and to render a recommendation 
based on a complete factual record developed during the expungement 
hearing. FINRA believes that the higher standards that the arbitrators 
must meet to serve on the Special Arbitrator Roster should mitigate the 
impact of the absence of party input on the selection of arbitrators. 
In addition, associated persons and member firms would still be 
permitted to challenge any arbitrator for cause.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Limitations on Expungement Requests
    Currently, Rules 12805 and 13805 do not address when a party would 
not be permitted to file an expungement request in the forum.\95\ The 
Guidance, however, describes several circumstances in which an 
expungement request should be ineligible for arbitration. The proposed 
rule change would incorporate the limitations contained in the Guidance 
as well as add time limits to when an associated person may file a 
straight-in request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ But see supra note 14 (describing time limits that apply to 
all arbitration claims, including expungement requests).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Limitations Applicable to Both Straight-In Requests and Expungement 
Requests During a Customer Arbitration
    The Guidance provides that if a panel or a court has issued an 
award or decision denying an associated person's expungement request, 
the associated person may not request expungement of the same customer 
dispute information in another arbitration. In particular, the Guidance 
states that arbitrators should ask a party requesting expungement 
whether an arbitration panel or a court previously denied expungement 
of the customer dispute information at issue and, if there has been a 
prior denial, the arbitration panel must deny the expungement 
request.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would codify the Guidance by providing 
that an associated person may not file a request for expungement of 
customer dispute information if (1) a panel held a hearing to consider 
the merits of the associated person's expungement request for the same 
customer dispute information or (2) a court of competent jurisdiction 
previously denied the associated person's request to expunge the same 
customer dispute information.\97\ These proposed amendments would 
prevent an associated person from forum shopping, or seeking to return 
to the arbitration forum administered by FINRA, to garner a favorable 
outcome on his or her expungement request.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(B) and 13805(a)(2)(A). The 
proposed rule change would require that the requesting party provide 
information about previous expungement requests and how such 
requests were decided. See, e.g., proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(C)(ii)e.
    \98\ FINRA notes that if a panel holds a hearing that addresses 
the merits of an associated person's request for expungement, the 
Director may deny the forum to any subsequent request by the 
associated person or another party on behalf of the associated 
person to expunge the same customer dispute information. See FINRA 
Rules 12203(a) and 13203(a); see also proposed Rules 12203(b) and 
13203(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Limitations Applicable to Straight-In Requests Only
    As discussed below, under the proposed amendments, three additional 
limitations would apply to straight-in requests.
i. No Straight-In Request if a Customer Arbitration Has Not Concluded
    The Guidance provides that an associated person may not file a 
separate request for expungement of customer dispute information 
arising from a customer arbitration until the customer arbitration has 
concluded. The proposed rule change would codify and expand upon the 
Guidance by providing that an associated person may not file a 
straight-in request under proposed Rule 13805 if the customer 
arbitration, civil litigation or customer complaint that gave rise to 
the customer dispute information has not closed.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(A)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would prevent an associated person from 
obtaining a decision on an expungement request while the customer 
arbitration is still ongoing. This change would help ensure that a 
decision in the customer arbitration is issued before the decision on 
the expungement request and avoid the possibility of inconsistent 
awards. The proposed amendment would also help ensure that the 
arbitrators who will decide the straight-in request are able to 
consider the final factual record from the customer arbitration.
ii. Time Limits Applicable to Disclosures Arising After the Effective 
Date of the Proposed Rule Change
    FINRA is aware that a number of expungement requests are filed many 
years after a customer arbitration closes or the reporting of a 
customer complaint in the CRD system.\100\ To encourage timelier filing 
of expungement requests, the proposed amendments would establish time 
limits for expungement requests that are specifically tied to the 
closure of customer arbitrations and civil litigations, or the 
reporting of customer complaints in the CRD system, as applicable.\101\ 
The proposed time limits should help encourage customer participation 
in expungement proceedings and help ensure that straight-in requests 
are brought before relevant evidence and testimony becomes stale or 
unavailable.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See infra Item II.B.3.D., ``Time Limits for Straight-in 
Requests--Quantitative Description.''
    \101\ FINRA Rules 12206 and 13206 provide that no claim shall be 
eligible for submission to arbitration where six years have elapsed 
from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim. Under these 
Rules, the panel has discretion to determine if the claim, including 
an expungement request, is eligible for arbitration. See supra note 
14. As discussed below, if the proposed rule change is approved by 
the Commission, this six-year eligibility rule would continue to 
apply to requests to expunge customer dispute information that arose 
prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change.
    \102\ All customers from a customer arbitration or civil 
litigation, and all customers who initiated a customer complaint, 
would be notified of the expungement request and encouraged to 
attend and provide their input. See proposed Rule 13805(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Two Years From the Close of a Customer Arbitration or Civil 
Litigation
    Under the proposed rule change, an associated person would be 
required to file a straight-in request within two years of the close of 
the customer arbitration or civil litigation that gave rise to the 
customer dispute information.\103\ A two-year period would provide a 
reasonable amount of time for associated persons and their firms to 
gather the documents, information and other resources required to file 
the expungement request. In addition, the two-year period would help 
ensure that the expungement hearing is held close enough in time to the 
customer arbitration, when information regarding the customer 
arbitration is available and in a timeframe that could increase the

[[Page 62152]]

likelihood for the customer to participate if he or she chooses to do 
so. The shorter timeframe, therefore, could provide panels with more 
complete factual records on which to base their expungement decisions. 
At the same time, it would allow the associated person time to 
determine whether to seek expungement by filing a straight-in request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(A)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Six Years From the Date a Customer Complaint Is Reported to the CRD 
System
    Under the proposed rule change, an associated person would be 
prohibited from filing a straight-in request to expunge a customer 
complaint where more than six years has elapsed since the customer 
complaint was initially reported to the CRD system and there was no 
customer arbitration or civil litigation that gave rise to the customer 
dispute information.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(A)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with FINRA's current eligibility rules,\105\ FINRA 
believes that six years from the date a customer complaint is initially 
reported to the CRD system should provide a reasonable amount of time 
for the associated person to bring an expungement claim. The six-year 
period would allow firms to complete their investigation of the 
customer complaint and close it in the CRD system; for the complaint to 
evolve, or not evolve, into an arbitration; and for the associated 
person to determine whether to proceed with a request to expunge the 
complaint. The proposed six-year time limit would also provide a 
reasonable time limit to encourage customer participation and help 
ensure the availability of evidence related to customer complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Time Limits Applicable to Disclosures Arising On or Prior to the 
Effective Date of the Proposed Rule Change
    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the proposal 
would also establish time limits for requests to expunge customer 
dispute information arising from customer arbitrations and civil 
litigations that close, and for customer complaints that were initially 
reported to the CRD system, on or prior to the effective date of the 
proposed rule change.
    Specifically, the proposed amendments would provide that if an 
expungement request is otherwise eligible under the six-year limitation 
period of FINRA Rule 13206(a), an associated person would be permitted 
to file a straight-in request under the Industry Code if: (1) The 
request for expungement is made within two years of the effective date 
of proposed rule change, and the disclosure to be expunged arises from 
a customer arbitration or civil litigation that closed on or prior to 
the effective date; \106\ or (2) the request for expungement is made 
within six years of the effective date of the proposed rule change, and 
the disclosure to be expunged arises from a customer complaint 
initially reported to the CRD system on or prior to its effective 
date.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(B)(i).
    \107\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Director's Authority To Deny the Forum
    If an associated person files an expungement request that is 
ineligible for arbitration under proposed Rules 12805 and 13805, the 
proposed rule change would give the Director the express authority to 
deny the use of FINRA's arbitration forum to decide the request.\108\ 
If the expungement request is ineligible for arbitration because a 
court or panel has decided previously an expungement request related to 
the same customer dispute information, the Director would deny the 
forum with prejudice as the request would be an attempt to receive a 
second decision on a request that had been decided previously on the 
merits. The Director would also deny the forum with prejudice if an 
expungement request is ineligible under the proposed time limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See proposed Rules 12203(b) and 13203(b). The panel would 
continue to have the authority to resolve any questions regarding 
eligibility of such claims under Rules 12206 and 13206, as 
applicable. See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the request is ineligible because a customer arbitration that 
involves the same customer dispute information is not concluded, the 
Director would deny the forum without prejudice so that the associated 
person could file the request (or a party could file an on-behalf-of 
request) in the customer arbitration or as a straight-in request after 
the customer arbitration concludes.
D. Procedural Requirements Relating to All Expungement Hearings
    The Codes currently provide a list of requirements panels must 
follow in order to decide an expungement request.\109\ In addition, the 
Guidance provides best practices that arbitrators should follow when 
deciding expungement requests. To guide further the arbitrators' 
decision-making, the proposed rule change would expand the expungement 
hearing requirements currently in FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805 to 
incorporate the relevant provisions from the Guidance. The proposed 
amendments would apply to all expungement hearings.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See supra note 24.
    \110\ See proposed Rules 12805(c) and 13805(c). The proposed 
procedural requirements for expungement hearings would apply to all 
expungement hearings, including hearings held during a customer 
arbitration or simplified arbitration (see infra Item II.A.1.(II)F., 
``Expungement Requests During Simplified Customer Arbitrations'') 
that consider an expungement request, and expungement hearings 
conducted by a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Recorded Hearing Sessions
    The Codes require a panel that is deciding an expungement request 
to hold a recorded hearing session (by telephone or in person) 
regarding the appropriateness of expungement.\111\ Consistent with 
current practice, the proposed rule change would add the ability to 
hold a recorded hearing session by video conference.\112\ Further, the 
proposed rule change would clarify that a panel would not be limited in 
the number of hearing sessions it should hold to decide the expungement 
request.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See FINRA Rules 12805(a) and 13805(a).
    \112\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(1) and 13805(c)(1).
    \113\ See supra note 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Associated Person's Appearance
    The proposed rule change would require the associated person who is 
seeking expungement of the customer dispute information to appear 
personally at the expungement hearing.\114\ A party requesting 
expungement on behalf of an unnamed person would also be required to 
appear at the hearing. The panel would determine whether an appearance 
should be by telephone, in person, or by video conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(2) and 13805(c)(2). The 
requirement to appear personally at the expungement hearing would 
also apply to an unnamed person who seeks to have his or her 
customer dispute information expunged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the associated person is requesting the permanent removal of 
information from his or her CRD record, FINRA believes the associated 
person whose CRD record would be expunged must personally participate 
in the expungement hearing to respond to questions from the panel and 
those customers who choose to participate. Rather than restrict the 
method of appearance, FINRA is proposing to provide the panel with the 
authority to decide which method of appearance would be the most 
appropriate for the particular case. FINRA believes that

[[Page 62153]]

providing flexibility as to the method of appearance would encourage 
appropriate fact-finding by the arbitrators and generally strengthen 
the process.
3. Customer's Participation During the Expungement Hearing
    The Guidance states that it is important to allow customers and 
their representatives to participate in the expungement hearing if they 
wish to do so.\115\ Specifically, the Guidance provides that 
arbitrators should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ The Guidance directs arbitrators to permit customers and 
their counsel to participate in the expungement hearing. See supra 
note 3. FINRA Rules 12208 and 13208 permit a party to be represented 
pro se, by an attorney or by a person who is not an attorney. The 
proposed amendments would replace the term ``counsel'' with 
``representative.'' See also Securities Arbitration--Should You Hire 
an Attorney? (Jan. 3, 2019), https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/securities-arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Allow the customers and their representatives to appear at 
the expungement hearing;
     Allow the customer to testify (telephonically, in person, 
or other method) at the expungement hearing;
     Allow the representative for the customer or a pro se 
customer to introduce documents and evidence at the expungement 
hearing;
     Allow the representative for the customer or a pro se 
customer to cross-examine the broker or other witnesses called by the 
party seeking expungement; and
     Allow the representative for the customer or a pro se 
customer to present opening and closing arguments if the panel allows 
any party to present such arguments.
    The proposed rule change would codify these provisions of the 
Guidance. The proposed rule change would make clear that all customers 
whose customer arbitrations, civil litigations and customer complaints 
gave rise to the customer dispute information that is a subject of the 
expungement request have a right to representation and are entitled to 
appear at the expungement hearing.\116\ The proposed rule change would 
provide that the customer can appear by telephone, in person, by video 
conference or other means convenient to the customer and customer's 
representative.\117\ By providing customers with options for how to 
participate in hearings, FINRA seeks to make it easier for customers to 
participate and, thereby, encourage customer participation. Customer 
participation during an expungement hearing provides the panel with 
important information and perspective that it might not otherwise 
receive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(3)(A) and 12805(c)(4); see 
also proposed Rules 13805(c)(3)(A) and 13805(c)(4). The proposed 
rule change would make clear that customers also have the option to 
provide their position on the expungement request in writing in lieu 
of attending the hearing.
    \117\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(3)(B) and 13805(c)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would provide that customers 
must be allowed to testify at the expungement hearing and be questioned 
by the customer's representative.\118\ If a customer testifies, the 
associated person or a party requesting expungement on-behalf-of an 
unnamed person would be allowed to cross-examine the customer.\119\ 
Similarly, the customer or customer's representative would be permitted 
to cross-examine the associated person or party requesting expungement 
on-behalf-of an unnamed person and any witnesses called by the 
associated person or party requesting expungement on-behalf-of an 
unnamed person during the expungement hearing.\120\ If the customer 
introduces any evidence at the expungement hearing, the associated 
person or party requesting expungement on-behalf-of an unnamed person 
could object to the introduction of the evidence, and the panel would 
decide any objections.\121\ The customer or customer's representative 
would also be permitted to present opening and closing arguments if the 
panel permits any party to present such arguments.\122\ FINRA believes 
the proposal strikes the right balance of allowing the customer to 
participate fully in the hearing and giving the associated person or 
party requesting expungement on-behalf-of an unnamed person the 
opportunity to substantiate arguments in support of the expungement 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(5)(A) and 13805(c)(5)(A).
    \119\ See supra note 118.
    \120\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(5)(C) and 13805(c)(5)(C).
    \121\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(5)(B) and 13805(c)(5)(B).
    \122\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(5)(D) and 13805(c)(5)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Panel Requests for Additional Documents or Evidence
    Arbitrators on the panel do not conduct their own research when 
hearing an arbitration case; instead, they review the materials 
provided by the parties. If they need more information, they can 
request it from the parties.\123\ In deciding an expungement request, 
particularly in cases that settle before an evidentiary hearing or in 
cases where the customer does not participate in the expungement 
hearing, the arbitrator's role as fact-finder is critical. Given this 
significant role, arbitrators must ensure that they have all of the 
information necessary to make a fully-informed decision on the 
expungement request on the basis of a complete factual record. Thus, 
the proposed rule change would codify the ability of arbitrators to 
request from the associated person, or other party requesting 
expungement, any documentary, testimonial or other evidence that they 
deem relevant to the expungement request.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(6) and 13805(c)(6).
    \124\ See supra note 123. The Guidance also suggests that 
arbitrators should ask the associated person seeking expungement or 
the party seeking expungement on an associated person's behalf to 
provide a current copy of the BrokerCheck report for the person 
whose record would be expunged, paying particular attention to the 
``Disclosure Events'' section of the report. See supra note 3. FINRA 
continues to encourage arbitrators to request a current copy of the 
associated person's BrokerCheck report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Review of Settlement Documents
    Current FINRA Rule 12805(b) provides that, in the event the parties 
from the customer arbitration settle their case, the panel considering 
the expungement request must review the settlement documents and 
consider the amount of payments made to any party and any other terms 
and conditions of the settlement.\125\ The proposed rule change would 
retain this requirement.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ The panel should review all settlement documents related 
to the customer dispute information the associated person is seeking 
to be expunged, regardless of whether the associated person was a 
party to the settlement.
    \126\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(7) and 13805(c)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Guidance encourages arbitrators to 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 customer does not participate in the expungement 
hearing or the requesting party states that a customer has indicated 
that he or she will not oppose the expungement request. The proposed 
rule change would codify this language in the Guidance.\127\ 
Conditioned settlements violate FINRA Rule 2081 and may be grounds to 
deny an expungement request.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(7) and 13805(c)(7).
    \128\ FINRA Rule 2081 provides that no member firm 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. See also Prohibited Conditions 
Relating to Expungement of Customer Dispute Information FAQ, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/faq/prohibited-conditions-relating-expungement-customer-dispute-information.

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

[[Page 62154]]

6. Awards
    Current FINRA Rules 12805(c) and 13805(c) require that the panel 
indicate in the arbitration award which of the FINRA Rule 2080 grounds 
for expungement serves as the basis for its expungement recommendation 
and provide a brief written explanation of the reasons for its finding 
that one or more FINRA Rule 2080 grounds for expungement applies to the 
facts of the case. The proposed rule change would retain this 
requirement, but would remove the word ``brief'' to indicate to the 
panel that it must provide enough detail in the award to explain its 
rationale for recommending expungement.\129\ As the Guidance suggests, 
the explanation must be complete and not solely a recitation of one of 
the FINRA Rule 2080 grounds or language provided in the expungement 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ In addition, all awards rendered under the Codes, 
including awards recommending expungement, must comply with the 
requirements of FINRA Rules 12904 or 13904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would incorporate language 
from the Guidance that the panel's explanation should identify any 
specific documentary, testimonial or other evidence relied on in 
recommending expungement.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(8) and 13805(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also make clarifying revisions to 
FINRA Rules 12805(c) and 13805(c). The proposed amendments would 
indicate that the FINRA Rule 2080 grounds that the panel must indicate 
serve as the basis for the expungement order are the grounds found in 
paragraph (b)(1) of FINRA Rule 2080.\131\ The proposed amendments would 
also provide that the panel would ``recommend'' rather than ``grant'' 
expungement.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ See infra note 238, and accompanying text.
    \132\ The word ``recommend'' more accurately describes the 
panel's role in the expungement process, consistent with FINRA's 
longstanding practice to state in expungement awards that the 
arbitrators ``recommend,'' rather than ``grant,'' expungement. See 
supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Forum Fees
    The proposed rule change would retain the current requirements in 
FINRA Rules 12805(d) and 13805(d) that addresses how forum fees are 
assessed in expungement hearings.\133\ Specifically, the panel must 
assess against the parties requesting expungement all forum fees for 
each hearing in which the sole topic is the determination of the 
appropriateness of expungement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(9) and 13805(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Notifications to Customers and States Regarding Expungement Requests
1. Associated Person Serves Customer With Statement of Claim
    The Guidance suggests that when a straight-in request is filed 
against a firm, arbitrators order the associated person to provide a 
copy of the statement of claim to the customers involved in the 
customer arbitration that gave rise to the customer dispute 
information. This helps ensure that the customers know about the 
expungement request and have an opportunity to participate in the 
expungement hearing or provide a position in writing on the associated 
person's request. The proposed rule change would codify this practice 
in the Industry Code by requiring that the associated person provide 
all customers whose customer arbitrations, civil litigations and 
customer complaints gave rise to the customer dispute information that 
is a subject of the expungement request with notice of the expungement 
request by serving a copy of the statement of claim requesting 
expungement.\134\ The panel would be authorized to decide whether 
extraordinary circumstances exist that make service on the customers 
impracticable.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See proposed Rule 13805(b)(1)(A). The associated person 
would be required to notify the customer before the first scheduled 
hearing session is held so that the customer would be aware of the 
expungement request in advance and could plan to participate once he 
or she is notified of the time and place of the hearing. See FINRA 
Rule 13100(p) (providing that a hearing session could be a hearing 
or prehearing conference).
    \135\ See proposed Rule 13805(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the associated person's personal interest in obtaining 
expungement, FINRA believes that the panel should review all documents 
that the associated person used to inform the customers about the 
expungement request as well as any customer responses received. 
Accordingly, the proposed amendments would require the associated 
person to file with the panel all documents provided by the associated 
person to the customers, including proof of service, and any responses 
received by the associated person from a customer.\136\ The proposed 
requirement would help ensure that the associated person does not 
attempt to dissuade a customer from participating in the expungement 
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See proposed Rule 13805(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Notification to Customers of Expungement Hearing
    To help ensure that the customer is notified about the expungement 
hearing, the proposed rule change would provide that the Director shall 
notify all customers whose customer arbitrations, civil litigations and 
customer complaints gave rise to the customer dispute information that 
is a subject of the expungement request, of the time, date and place of 
the expungement hearing using the customer's current address provided 
by the party seeking expungement.\137\ The associated person would be 
required to provide a current address for the customer, or the 
expungement request would be considered deficient and would not be 
served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ See proposed Rule 13805(b)(2). This requirement would 
apply to straight-in requests filed under the Industry Code; notice 
to customers would not be necessary for requests filed under 
proposed Rule 12805 of the Customer Code as the customer would be a 
named party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. State Notification of Expungement Requests
    The proposed rule change would require FINRA to notify state 
securities regulators, in the manner determined by FINRA, of an 
expungement request within 30 days after receiving a complete request 
for expungement.\138\ The proposed amendments would help ensure that 
state securities regulators are timely notified of the expungement 
requests.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ See proposed Rules 12805(b) and 13805(b)(3).
    \139\ FINRA would make this notification in connection with 
expungement requests under the Customer and Industry Codes. Such 
notification could be achieved by notifying NASAA of the expungement 
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Expungement Requests During Simplified Customer Arbitrations
    Customer arbitrations involving $50,000 or less, called simplified 
arbitrations, are governed by FINRA Rule 12800. FINRA Rule 12800 
provides customers with expedited procedures to make the FINRA forum 
economically feasible for these smaller claims. Simplified arbitrations 
are decided on the pleadings and other materials submitted by the 
parties, unless the customer requests a hearing.\140\ Further, a single 
arbitrator from the chairperson roster is appointed to consider and 
decide simplified arbitrations, unless the parties agree in writing 
otherwise.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ See FINRA Rule 12800(a).
    \141\ See FINRA Rule 12800(b). The parties could agree to have a 
three-person panel decide the simplified case. For ease of 
reference, when discussing expungement requests in simplified 
arbitrations under the proposed rule change, the rule filing uses 
the term ``arbitrator,'' unless otherwise specified, to mean either 
a panel or single arbitrator.

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

[[Page 62155]]

    The customer who files a simplified arbitration determines how the 
claim will be decided. In particular, the customer has the option of 
having the case decided in one of three ways: (1) Without a hearing 
(referred to as ``on the papers''), where the arbitrator decides the 
case on the pleadings or other materials; (2) in an ``Option One'' full 
hearing, in which prehearings and hearings on the merits take place 
pursuant to the regular provisions of the Code; or (3) in an ``Option 
Two'' special proceeding, whereby the parties present their case in a 
hearing to the arbitrator in a compressed timeframe, so that the 
hearings last no longer than one day.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ See FINRA Rule 12800(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, named associated persons and parties requesting 
expungement on-behalf-of unnamed persons request expungement during 
simplified arbitrations. FINRA Rule 12800 does not, however, expressly 
address how an expungement request should be filed or considered during 
a simplified arbitration. The proposed amendments would codify an 
associated person's ability to request expungement when named as a 
respondent in a simplified arbitration, and for other parties to 
request expungement on-behalf-of an unnamed person. The proposed rule 
change would also establish procedures for requesting and considering 
expungement requests in simplified arbitrations that are consistent 
with the expedited nature of these proceedings.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Under the proposed rule change, an associated person would 
not be permitted to request expungement in a simplified arbitration 
administered under the Industry Code, FINRA Rule 13800. All 
expungement requests under the Industry Code must be filed in 
accordance with proposed Rule 13805.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Requesting Expungement
    The proposed rule change would permit a named associated person to 
request expungement, or a party to file an on-behalf-of request, during 
a simplified arbitration. Unlike in a non-simplified arbitration, if 
expungement is not requested during the simplified arbitration, the 
associated person would be permitted to request it as a straight-in 
request filed under the Industry Code.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ See infra Item II.A.1.(II)F.1.c., ``When No Expungement 
Request is Made in a Simplified Arbitration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. By a Named Associated Person During the Simplified Arbitration
    Under the proposed rule change, an associated person named as a 
respondent in a simplified arbitration could request expungement during 
the arbitration of the customer dispute information arising from the 
customer's statement of claim, provided the request is eligible for 
arbitration.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ See proposed Rule 12800(d)(1)(A). The limitations that 
apply to expungement requests filed by a named associated person 
under proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(B) would apply to these requests. 
See supra Item II.A.1.(II)C., ``Limitations on Expungement 
Requests.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a named associated person requests expungement during a 
simplified arbitration, the proposed rule change would require the 
request to be filed in an answer or pleading requesting expungement and 
include the same information required as a request filed in a non-
simplified arbitration.\146\ Because of the expedited nature of 
simplified arbitrations, if the named associated person requests 
expungement in a pleading other than answer, the request must be filed 
within 30 days after the date that FINRA notifies the associated person 
of arbitrator appointment,\147\ which is the last deadline provided to 
the parties in a simplified arbitration to submit any additional 
documents before the case is submitted to the arbitrator.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ See proposed Rules 12800(d)(1)(B)(i) and 
12805(a)(1)(C)(ii). Thus, the associated person's expungement 
request would be required to contain the applicable filing fee; the 
CRD number of the party requesting expungement; each CRD occurrence 
number that is the subject of the request; the case name and docket 
number that gave rise to the disclosure, if applicable; and an 
explanation of whether expungement of the same customer dispute 
information was previously requested and, if so, how it was decided.
    \147\ FINRA would notify state securities regulators, in the 
manner determined by FINRA, of an expungement request within 30 days 
after receiving a complete expungement request. See proposed Rule 
12800(f)(1).
    \148\ FINRA notifies the parties when an arbitrator has been 
appointed. FINRA informs the parties that they have 30 days from the 
date of notification to submit additional documents or other 
information before the case is submitted to the arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To limit arbitrator shopping, the arbitrator would be required to 
decide an expungement request once it is filed by the associated 
person.\149\ If an associated person withdraws or does not pursue the 
request after filing, the arbitrator would be required to deny the 
request with prejudice so that it could not be re-filed.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See proposed Rule 12800(e)(1).
    \150\ See proposed Rule 12800(d)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. By a Party On-Behalf-Of an Unnamed Person
    Under the proposed amendments, the requirements for a party to file 
an on-behalf-of request during a simplified arbitration would be the 
same as the requirements for a named associated person filing an 
expungement request during a simplified arbitration, with one 
distinction. A named party would only be able to file an on-behalf-of 
request during a simplified arbitration with the consent of the unnamed 
person. As with on-behalf-of requests filed in customer arbitrations 
under proposed Rule 12805(a)(2), the unnamed person who would benefit 
from the expungement request must consent to such filing by signing the 
Form.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See proposed Rule 12800(d)(2). The request must also meet 
the same requirements as an on-behalf-of request filed under 
proposed Rule 12805(a)(2). See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(C)(ii), 
12805(a)(2)(C)(ii) and 12805(a)(2)(D); see also supra Items 
II.A.1.(II)A.1.b., ``Expungement Requests By a Party Named in the 
Customer Arbitration On-Behalf-Of an Unnamed Person.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. When No Expungement Request Is Made in a Simplified Arbitration
    If expungement is not requested during the simplified arbitration 
under proposed Rule 12800(d), the associated person would be able to 
file a straight-in request under proposed Rule 13805 and have the 
request decided by a three-person panel randomly selected from the 
Special Arbitrator Roster.\152\ The request would be subject to the 
limitations on whether and when such requests may be filed under the 
Industry Code.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ See proposed Rules 12800(e)(2), 13805 and 13806.
    \153\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2); see also supra Item 
II.A.1.(II)C., ``Limitations on Expungement Requests.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the expedited nature of simplified proceedings, FINRA 
believes that the associated person should be able to seek expungement 
separately under the Industry Code and have his or her expungement 
request decided by a panel randomly selected from the Special 
Arbitrator Roster. In simplified arbitrations, there may be less 
discovery, and the customer may dictate the extent of the evidence 
presented to the arbitrator. The customer may, for example, determine 
to have the arbitration decided on the papers. Because there may be 
less information available for the arbitrator to evaluate an 
expungement request during a simplified arbitration--even when the 
simplified arbitration results in an award--the associated person would 
retain the ability to choose to file the request as a straight-in 
request under the Industry Code.
2. Deciding Expungement Requests During Simplified Arbitrations
    If a named associated person or party on-behalf-of an unnamed 
person requests expungement during a simplified arbitration, the 
arbitrator would be required to decide the expungement request, 
regardless of how

[[Page 62156]]

the simplified arbitration case closes (e.g., even if the case 
settles).\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ See proposed Rule 12800(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, how and when the expungement 
request is decided would depend on which option the customer selects to 
decide the simplified arbitration.
a. No Hearing or Option Two Special Proceeding
    If the customer opts not to have a hearing or chooses an Option Two 
special proceeding, the arbitrator would decide the customer's dispute 
first and issue an award.\155\ After the customer's dispute is decided, 
the arbitrator must hold a separate expungement-only hearing to 
consider and decide the expungement request and issue a separate 
award.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See proposed FINRA Rule 12800(e)(1)(A).
    \156\ See supra note 155. The arbitrator must conduct the 
expungement hearing pursuant to proposed Rule 12805(c). The 
expungement award must meet the requirements of proposed Rule 
12805(c)(8), and forum fees would be assessed pursuant to proposed 
Rule 12805(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The arbitrator would decide the customer's dispute first and issue 
an award to minimize any delays in resolving the customer arbitration 
and any delays in potential recovery that a customer may be awarded. 
Further, because the customer arbitration may not be as fully developed 
when an ``on the papers'' or special proceeding is requested, the 
arbitrator must hold a separate expungement-only hearing to ensure that 
he or she has access to sufficient evidence to make a fully-informed 
decision on the expungement request. The Director would notify all 
customers whose simplified customer arbitrations and customer 
complaints gave rise to the customer dispute information that is a 
subject of the expungement request, of the time, date and place of the 
expungement hearing.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See proposed Rule 12800(f)(2). The Director would also 
notify these customers of the expungement hearing, if the associated 
person opts to file the request under the Industry Code after the 
simplified case closes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Option One Hearing
    If the customer chooses to have a full ``Option One'' hearing on 
his or her claim and it closes by award, the arbitrator would be 
required to consider and decide the expungement request during the 
customer arbitration and include the decision in the award.\158\ This 
process would be the same as deciding an expungement request during a 
non-simplified customer arbitration that closes by award after a 
hearing, where the customer's claim and expungement request are 
addressed during the customer arbitration. As there would be a more 
complete factual record from the full hearing on the merits of the 
customer case, the arbitrator could decide the customer dispute and the 
expungement request after the hearing concludes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See proposed Rule 12800(e)(1)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the customer arbitration closes other than by award or by award 
without a hearing, the arbitrator would be required to hold a separate 
expungement-only hearing to consider and decide the expungement request 
and issue the decision in an award.\159\ The arbitrator would need to 
conduct a separate expungement hearing to develop a complete factual 
record in order to make a fully-informed decision on the expungement 
request.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See proposed Rule 12800(e)(1)(B)(ii).
    \160\ See supra note 156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the generally less complex nature of simplified arbitrations, 
FINRA does not believe that it is necessary for a panel from the 
Special Arbitrator Roster to decide an expungement request if a 
simplified customer arbitration closes other than by award or by award 
without a hearing. However, if the Commission approves the proposed 
rule change, FINRA will continue to monitor expungement requests and 
decisions in simplified arbitrations to determine if such requests 
should be decided by the Special Arbitrator Roster, particularly if the 
customer chooses to have his or her case decided on the papers or in a 
special proceeding.
G. Non-Substantive Changes
    FINRA is also proposing to amend the Codes to make non-substantive, 
technical changes to the rules impacted by the proposed rule change. 
For example, the proposed rule change would require the renumbering of 
paragraphs and the updating of cross-references in the rules impacted 
by the proposed rule change. In addition, the title of Part VIII of the 
Customer Code would be amended to add a reference to ``Expungement'' 
proceedings. Similarly, the title of Part VIII of the Industry Code 
would be amended to add a reference to ``Expungement Proceedings'' and 
``Promissory Note Proceedings.'' FINRA believes the proposed changes to 
the titles would more accurately reflect the contents of Part VIII of 
the Customer and Industry Codes. FINRA is also proposing to re-number 
current FINRA Rule 13806 (Promissory Note Proceedings) as new FINRA 
Rule 13807, without substantive change to the current rule language.
    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will 
announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory 
Notice to be published no later than 60 days following Commission 
approval. The effective date will be no later than 120 days following 
publication of the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval of 
the proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the 
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\161\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change seeks to balance the important investor 
protection objectives of maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the 
information in the CRD system and BrokerCheck with the interest of 
brokers and firms in the fairness and accuracy of the disclosures 
contained in the systems.
    The proposed rule change will enhance the current expungement 
framework and improve the efficiency of the FINRA arbitration forum by 
codifying the Guidance as rules that arbitrators and parties must 
follow. In addition, when an associated person files a claim against a 
firm for the sole purpose of requesting expungement, these cases can be 
complex to resolve, particularly if the customer or customer's 
representative does not participate in the hearing. Having three 
arbitrators available to ask questions, request evidence and generally 
to serve as fact-finders in the absence of customer input will help 
ensure that a complete factual record is created to support the 
arbitrators' decision in such expungement hearings. In addition, the 
proposed rule change will help ensure that arbitrators who will decide 
these requests meet heightened qualifications and have completed 
enhanced expungement training. FINRA believes that by requiring a 
three-person panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster to decide 
expungement requests filed under the Industry Code, the proposed rule 
change will help ensure expungement is recommended in limited 
circumstances.
    The proposed rule change will foreclose a practice that has emerged 
in the existing expungement process where parties seek expungement 
after a prior denial by a court or panel of a request

[[Page 62157]]

to expunge the same customer dispute information, or where parties 
withdraw or do not pursue an expungement request and then make another 
request for expungement of the same customer dispute information. The 
proposed rule change imposes procedures and requirements around when 
and how a party may request expungement, and expressly provides that 
omission of certain of the requirements will make the expungement 
request deficient. Further, the proposed rule change provides the 
Director with express authority to deny the forum if an expungement 
request is ineligible for arbitration under the proposed rules. Thus, 
FINRA believes the proposed rule change will add more transparency to 
the expungement process.
    Moreover, the proposed rule change seeks to protect investors and 
the public interest by notifying customers of expungement requests 
filed under the Industry Code. Although a straight-in request will be 
filed against a firm, customers whose disputes are a subject of the 
request will be notified and encouraged to participate in the 
expungement hearing. Such notifications will make clear to arbitrators 
and parties the rights of customers who choose to participate in these 
hearings. The customers' input will provide the panel with additional 
insight on the customer dispute and help create a complete factual 
record, which will result in more informed decisions on expungement 
requests. FINRA believes this enhancement, which will encourage and 
facilitate customer participation in expungement hearings, will help to 
maintain the integrity of the information in the CRD system.
    Further, the process of requesting expungement during a simplified 
arbitration will be codified to help ensure that customers are aware of 
their rights under the process and how an expungement request will 
affect (and not affect) their arbitration claims. By expressly 
incorporating the practice of requesting expungement during simplified 
proceedings, the proposed amendments add consistency to the rules and 
provide more guidance to the arbitrators and the parties requesting 
expungement.
    The proposed rule change will also help ensure that state 
securities regulators have knowledge of expungement requests by 
requiring notification to the states, in the manner determined by 
FINRA, after FINRA receives a complete expungement request.
    For these reasons, the proposed rule change represents a 
significant step towards addressing concerns with the current 
expungement framework. FINRA believes the proposed rule change will 
improve the expungement framework by incorporating the Guidance, 
establishing a Special Arbitrator Roster and addressing gaps that have 
emerged in the existing expungement framework. In addition, FINRA 
believes these changes will help to maintain the accuracy and integrity 
of the information in the CRD system and BrokerCheck, while also 
protecting brokers from the publication of false allegations against 
them.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in 
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in 
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Economic Impact Assessment
    FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment to analyze the 
regulatory need for the proposed rule change, its potential economic 
impacts, including anticipated costs, benefits and distributional and 
competitive effects, relative to the current baseline, and the 
alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how best to meet FINRA's 
regulatory objectives.
1. Regulatory Need
    The proposed rule change would address concerns relating to the 
expungement process that are not consistent with the regulatory intent 
to permit expungement in limited circumstances. The concerns include 
the potential impact of the absence of customers and their 
representatives from an expungement hearing which may result in the 
arbitrator or panel receiving information only from the associated 
person. The concerns also include associated persons having their 
straight-in requests heard by a single arbitrator instead of a three-
person panel, and the selection of arbitrators to hear these requests. 
Lastly, the concerns include requests to expunge the same customer 
dispute information in multiple proceedings. The proposed rule change 
would also codify and expand upon the provisions of the Guidance to 
help ensure that arbitrators and parties are adhering to these 
procedures for all expungement requests, and to encourage and 
facilitate customer participation in expungement hearings.
2. Economic Baseline
    The economic baseline for the proposed rule change includes the 
current provisions under the Codes that address the process for parties 
to seek expungement relief. In addition, because arbitrators are 
generally believed to be adhering to the best practices and 
recommendations that are a part of the Guidance, the economic baseline 
also includes the Guidance.\162\ The proposed rule change is expected 
to affect associated persons and other parties to expungement requests 
including member firms, customers and arbitrators. The proposed rule 
change may also affect users of customer dispute information contained 
in the CRD system and displayed through BrokerCheck.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See supra note 3.
    \163\ Users of customer dispute information include investors; 
member firms and other companies in the financial services industry; 
individuals registered as brokers or seeking employment in the 
brokerage industry; and FINRA, states and other regulators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The customer dispute information contained in the CRD system is 
submitted by registered securities firms and regulatory authorities in 
response to questions on the uniform registration forms.\164\ The 
information can be valuable to current and prospective customers to 
learn about the conduct of associated persons.\165\ Current and 
prospective customers may not select or remain with an associated 
person or a member firm that employs an associated person with a record 
of customer disputes. Similarly, member firms and other companies in 
the financial services industry may use the information when making 
employment decisions.\166\ In this manner, the customer dispute 
information contained in the CRD system (and displayed through 
BrokerCheck) may positively or negatively affect the business and 
professional opportunities of associated persons. Where the information 
is reliable, it also provides for customer

[[Page 62158]]

protections and information useful for member firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ See supra note 5 and accompanying text for additional 
discussion of the uniform registration forms and the information 
contained in the CRD system. Some of the information may involve 
pending actions or allegations that have not been resolved or 
proven.
    \165\ Recent academic studies provide evidence that the past 
disciplinary and other regulatory events associated with a firm or 
individual can be predictive of similar future events. See Hammad 
Qureshi & Jonathan Sokobin, Do Investors Have Valuable Information 
About Brokers? FINRA Office of the Chief Economist Working Paper, 
Aug. 2015; see also Mark Egan, Gregor Matvos, & Amit Seru, The 
Market for Financial Adviser Misconduct, Journal of Political 
Economy 127, no. 1 (February 2019): 233-295.
    \166\ Customer dispute information submitted to the CRD system 
and displayed through BrokerCheck may have other uses. For example, 
investors may use the information when deciding with whom to do 
business. FINRA, states and other regulators also use the 
information to regulate brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any negative impact on the business and professional opportunities 
of associated persons may be appropriate and consistent with investor 
protection, such as when the customer dispute information has merit. 
Any such negative impact may be inappropriate, however, if, for 
example, the customer dispute information is factually impossible, 
clearly erroneous, or false. Regardless of the merit, associated 
persons have an incentive to remove customer dispute information from 
the CRD system and its public display through BrokerCheck.
    An associated person, or a party on-behalf-of an unnamed person, 
typically begins the process to remove customer dispute information 
from the CRD system by filing an expungement request in FINRA 
arbitration. FINRA is able to identify 6,928 requests to expunge 
customer dispute information in FINRA arbitration from January 2016 
through December 2019 (the ``sample period''). More than one 
expungement request can be made in a single arbitration, and multiple 
expungement requests may relate to the same arbitration, civil 
litigation or complaint if the dispute relates to more than one 
associated person.
    Among the 6,928 expungement requests, 3,203 requests (46 percent) 
were made during a customer arbitration, and 3,725 requests (54 
percent) were filed as a straight-in request.\167\ The 3,203 
expungement requests made during a customer arbitration include 2,936 
requests made during a non-simplified customer arbitration and 267 
requests made during a simplified customer arbitration. The 3,725 
requests to expunge customer dispute information disclosures filed as a 
straight-in request include 3,657 requests in arbitrations filed solely 
against a member firm or against a member firm and a customer, and 68 
requests in arbitrations filed solely against a customer. In the 3,203 
expungement requests made during a customer arbitration, the associated 
person was a named party in 1,504 of the requests (47 percent), and an 
unnamed party in 1,699 of the requests (53 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ Sixteen requests to expunge customer dispute information 
were made during industry arbitrations that were not straight-in 
requests. To simplify the analysis, we exclude these 16 requests 
from the sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the expungement requests during the sample period, FINRA is 
able to identify 82 requests to expunge the same customer dispute 
information in a subsequent arbitration.\168\ For purposes of this 
analysis, FINRA limited the identification of additional expungement 
requests to those requests where both the initial request and the 
subsequent request were made during the sample period. Additional 
subsequent expungement requests may have been filed during the sample 
period if the initial expungement request was made prior to the sample 
period (i.e., before January 2016). The 82 requests to expunge the same 
customer dispute information in a subsequent arbitration can, 
therefore, be considered a lower bound for the number of these requests 
during the sample period. The proposed rule change would foreclose 
associated persons from filing additional requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Eighty of the 82 subsequent expungement requests relate to 
previous requests in another arbitration that were withdrawn or 
otherwise not pursued by the associated person or party that filed 
the request. For the two remaining subsequent expungement requests, 
one relates to a previous request on behalf of an unnamed person 
that was denied, and the other to a previous request that was 
determined by the panel to be ineligible for arbitration. An 
arbitrator or panel recommended expungement in 60 of the 82 
subsequent expungement requests and denied eight. One of the granted 
requests relates to the previous request that was denied. Another of 
the granted requests relates to the previous request that was 
deficient and therefore not decided. Seven subsequent expungement 
requests were withdrawn or deficient and, therefore, not decided. In 
addition, seven subsequent expungement requests were still pending 
as of the end of the sample period. In 42 of the 82 subsequent 
expungement requests, the associated person was an unnamed party in 
the first arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of December 2019, 5,159 of the 6,928 expungement requests were 
made in an arbitration that closed. Among the 5,159 expungement 
requests, 2,255 requests (44 percent) were made during a customer 
arbitration and 2,904 requests (56 percent) were filed as a straight-in 
request. The 2,255 expungement requests made during a customer 
arbitration include 2,015 requests made during a non-simplified 
customer arbitration and 240 requests made during a simplified customer 
arbitration. The 2,904 requests filed as a straight-in request include 
2,838 requests in arbitrations filed solely against a member firm or a 
member firm and a customer, and 66 requests in arbitrations filed 
solely against a customer. Under the proposed rule change, an 
associated person would be prohibited from filing a straight-in request 
against a customer.
    An arbitrator or panel made a decision in arbitrations relating to 
3,722 of the 5,159 requests in arbitrations that closed, and made no 
decision in arbitrations relating to the remaining 1,437 requests. A 
single arbitrator made a decision in arbitrations relating to 2,692 of 
the 3,722 requests, and a two- or three-person panel made a decision in 
arbitrations relating to the remaining 1,030 requests. For the customer 
arbitrations, the decision by an arbitrator or panel may relate to the 
arbitration, an expungement request, or both. For the straight-in 
requests, the decision would relate to the expungement request only. In 
arbitrations where no decision on the merits of the customer case or an 
expungement request was made, the requests were either not eligible (as 
determined by the arbitrator or panel), withdrawn, or otherwise not 
pursued by the associated person or party that filed the request.
    As detailed in the next paragraph, the percentage of expungement 
requests that are recommended is higher when the arbitrator or panel 
receives information only from the associated person or other party 
requesting expungement. The arbitrator or panel is likely to receive 
information only from the party requesting expungement when (1) the 
customer arbitration does not close by award after a hearing (e.g., 
settles), or (2) an associated person files a straight-in request 
against a member firm. In both circumstances, the customer and his or 
her representative have little incentive to participate in an 
expungement hearing.
    Among the 3,722 expungement requests in arbitrations where an 
arbitrator or panel made a decision, 2,874 resulted in an arbitrator or 
panel recommending expungement (77 percent). Among the 3,722 
expungement requests, 976 requests were made during a non-simplified or 
simplified customer arbitration, and 2,746 requests were filed as a 
straight-in request. An arbitrator or panel recommended expungement in 
response to 595 of the 976 requests (61 percent) made during a customer 
arbitration. This includes 168 of the 369 requests (46 percent) made 
during a customer arbitration that closed by award after a hearing, and 
427 of the 607 expungement requests (70 percent) made during a customer 
arbitration that closed by award without a hearing or other than by 
award. An arbitrator or panel recommended expungement in 2,279 of the 
2,746 requests filed as a straight-in request (83 percent).\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ Among the 976 expungement requests during a non-simplified 
or simplified customer arbitration, a single arbitrator made a 
decision in arbitrations relating to 306 requests, and a two- or 
three-person panel made a decision in arbitrations relating to 670 
requests. In addition, among the 2,746 straight-in requests, a 
single arbitrator made a decision in arbitrations relating to 2,386 
requests and a two- or three-person panel made a decision in 
arbitrations relating to 360 requests. See infra note 190 for a 
discussion of the percentage of expungement requests recommended 
between two- or three-person panels and one-person panels.

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

[[Page 62159]]

    A recommendation for expungement in FINRA arbitration is not the 
final step in the expungement process. If the arbitrator or panel 
recommends expungement, then the firm or associated person must confirm 
the arbitration award in a court of competent jurisdiction and serve 
the confirmed award on FINRA.\170\ As of July 2020, FINRA had removed 
2,641 customer dispute information disclosures from the CRD system from 
the possible 2,874 requests (92 percent) in which an arbitrator or 
panel recommended expungement. Firms or associated persons may have not 
yet sought or obtained a court order for the remaining disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approximately one-third of the 2,641 customer dispute information 
disclosures (965, or 37 percent) that were expunged were submitted to 
the CRD system from 2014 to 2019. The 965 customer dispute information 
disclosures reflect three percent of the total number of customer 
dispute information disclosures submitted to the CRD system during this 
period of time (approximately 37,000). The remaining 1,676 customer 
dispute information disclosures were submitted to the CRD system prior 
to 2014. The number of customer dispute information disclosures 
expunged during the sample period that were submitted to the CRD system 
prior to 2014 suggests that associated persons may yet still expunge 
customer dispute information disclosures submitted to the CRD system 
during or prior to the sample period. The three percent of expunged 
customer dispute information disclosures should therefore be considered 
a lower bound for the rate at which customer dispute information 
disclosures are expunged.
    A firm or associated person can also initiate a proceeding directly 
in a court of competent jurisdiction without first going through any 
arbitration proceeding. From January 2016 through December 2019, the 
expungement of 138 customer dispute information disclosures were sought 
directly in court. As of July 2020, court proceedings had concluded for 
118 of those disclosures and proceedings remained ongoing for 20 
disclosures. Among the 118 disclosures for which the court proceeding 
had concluded, 86 disclosures were ordered expunged by a court and 32 
disclosures were not ordered to be expunged. FINRA will challenge these 
requests in court in appropriate circumstances.
3. Economic Impact
A. Overview
    The proposed rule change would codify the best practices described 
in the Guidance.\171\ The best practices include the prohibition on the 
filing of an expungement request if (1) an arbitration panel or court 
of competent jurisdiction previously denied a request to expunge the 
same customer dispute information, or (2) the customer dispute 
information arises from a customer's arbitration that has not 
concluded. Based on FINRA staff observations, arbitrators are generally 
believed to be adhering to these best practices and, therefore, 
codifying them should not result in new material economic impacts. 
Codifying the best practices in the Guidance should, however, clarify 
among parties how the practices should be applied, including what is 
permitted during the expungement hearing and the responsibilities of 
the parties and the arbitrator or panel when expungement is requested. 
Codifying the Guidance may also help inform customers more generally of 
the practices that the forum has implemented to encourage and 
facilitate customer participation in expungement hearings. In addition, 
parties may incur fewer costs from the codification of the practices, 
including the costs from actions or decisions (e.g., requesting 
expungement of customer dispute information that was previously denied 
in another arbitration or court) that would be denied by an arbitration 
panel pursuant to the Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also introduce other changes to the 
Codes that expand upon or that are not a part of the Guidance. In 
particular, the proposed rule change would restrict when an associated 
person is permitted to request expungement in FINRA arbitration. The 
proposed rule change would also require an arbitrator or panel from a 
customer arbitration that closes by award after a hearing, from a 
simplified customer arbitration, or a panel from the Special Arbitrator 
Roster to decide an expungement request. Finally, the proposed rule 
change would address the participation by associated persons and 
customers in expungement hearings. These changes may result in new 
material economic benefits and costs. These economic effects are 
discussed in further detail below.
B. Expungement Requests During Customer Arbitrations
    The proposed rule change would set forth requirements for 
expungement requests during customer arbitrations. The proposed rule 
change would establish different requirements for non-simplified 
customer arbitrations and simplified customer arbitrations, and for an 
associated person named or unnamed to a (non-simplified or simplified) 
customer arbitration.
i. Expungement Requests by Named Associated Persons During Non-
Simplified Customer Arbitrations
    The proposed rule change would require an associated person named 
in a non-simplified customer arbitration to request expungement during 
the customer arbitration regarding the conduct that gave rise to the 
arbitration. Otherwise, the associated person would forfeit the 
opportunity to seek expungement of the same customer dispute 
information in any subsequent proceeding. The arbitrator or panel from 
a non-simplified customer arbitration would decide an expungement 
request if the arbitration closes by award after a hearing.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See supra Item II.A.1.(II)A.1.a., ``Expungement Requests 
During the Customer Arbitration, By a Respondent Named in a Customer 
Arbitration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would help ensure that, if possible, the 
arbitrator or panel from a non-simplified customer arbitration, with 
input from all parties and access to all evidence, testimony and other 
documents, would decide an expungement request. These arbitrators or 
panels would be best situated to decide the related issue of 
expungement, and thereby help ensure that expungement recommendations 
and the customer dispute information contained in the CRD system and 
displayed through BrokerCheck reflect the conduct of associated 
persons.
    An associated person named in a non-simplified customer arbitration 
may lose the ability to request expungement of the customer dispute 
information arising from the arbitration. A named associated person who 
does not request expungement during a non-simplified customer 
arbitration (or within the required time) would lose the ability to 
seek expungement relief.\173\ Because the named associated person may 
lose the ability to assess information that arises as a part of 
arbitration before they are required to request expungement,

[[Page 62160]]

associated persons may incur costs to preserve their right to request 
expungement by filing a request with or without the expectation that 
the arbitrator or panel would recommend expungement. FINRA believes, 
however, that the proposed rule change would mitigate these potential 
costs by providing associated persons a reasonable amount of time 
(i.e., within 45 days of receipt of the customer's statement of claim 
if the request is included in an answer, or 30 days before the first 
scheduled hearing begins if the request is included in a pleading) 
during the arbitration to consider whether to file a request. Parties 
may also incur other, indirect costs if, for example, the deadline to 
request expungement during a non-simplified customer arbitration causes 
them to incur costs to expedite the filing of the expungement request 
or constrains their ability to engage in other activities (i.e., incur 
opportunity costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Under the proposed rule change, a party that does not file 
or serve an expungement request at least 30 days before the first 
scheduled hearing begins could file a motion seeking an extension. 
The motion, however, may be opposed by another party and denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Expungement Requests During a Non-Simplified Customer Arbitration 
That Close Other Than by Award or by Award Without a Hearing
    Associated persons who request expungement during a non-simplified 
customer arbitration (either as a named party or as an unnamed party 
that consents to an on-behalf-of request) that closes other than by 
award or by award without a hearing (and would have otherwise had their 
expungement request decided as part of the customer arbitration) would 
incur additional costs to file a straight-in request.\174\ Associated 
persons may incur delays in receiving a decision on the request, and 
may incur additional legal fees and forum fees to resolve the straight-
in request. The member firms with which the associated persons were 
associated at the time the customer dispute arose would also incur 
additional legal and forum fees. These costs would be imposed by the 
proposed rule change if the expungement requests would have otherwise 
been decided as part of the non-simplified customer arbitration. These 
costs would not be imposed by the proposed rule change, however, if 
regardless of the proposed rule change associated persons would have 
filed a straight-in request after the close of the non-simplified 
customer arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ Associated persons who would otherwise request expungement 
as a counterclaim during an industry arbitration, which is rare, or 
who would otherwise intervene in a customer arbitration and have an 
expungement request decided during the arbitration, would instead be 
required to file a straight-in request under proposed Rule 13805. 
These associated persons and member firms with which the associated 
persons were associated would incur similar costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The additional costs for an associated person to resolve a 
straight-in request after the close of a non-simplified customer 
arbitration (that closes other than by award or by award without a 
hearing) may reduce the likelihood that the parties settle a customer 
arbitration.\175\ In particular, the associated person may factor the 
cost to resolve a separate straight-in request into the decision 
regarding whether to settle the arbitration or have the case decided by 
the arbitrator or panel to the arbitration. In addition, even if the 
parties continue to settle the dispute, the associated person may 
subtract the cost to resolve a separate straight-in request from the 
potential settlement amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ FINRA notes, however, that the determination regarding 
whether to settle a customer arbitration can depend on a number of 
factors, including the parties' respective estimates of the 
additional costs they would incur to continue the customer 
arbitration, the value that the associated person places on 
expungement, the associated person's estimate of the likelihood that 
he or she could obtain expungement in the customer case compared to 
in a straight-in request and the cost that they estimate the 
associated person would incur to pursue the straight-in request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An associated person (or a party on behalf of an associated person) 
who files a straight-in request would incur the minimum hearing session 
fee of $1,125 for each session the panel conducts to decide the 
expungement request.\176\ The member firm at which the broker was 
associated at the time the customer dispute arose would also be 
assessed a minimum surcharge fee of $1,900 and a minimum process fee of 
$3,750. The fees associated with non-monetary claims would help ensure 
that costs to the forum for administering expungement requests are 
allocated as intended to the party or parties requesting expungement 
and, as applicable, the member firms at which the broker was associated 
at the time the customer dispute arose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ The associated person would not, however, incur an 
additional filing fee to file the straight-in expungement request. 
See infra Item II.C.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Expungement Requests by Unnamed Persons in Non-Simplified Customer 
Arbitrations and by Named and Unnamed Persons in Simplified Customer 
Arbitrations
    The proposed rule change would not require an unnamed person in a 
non-simplified customer arbitration, an associated person named in a 
simplified customer arbitration, or an unnamed person in a simplified 
customer arbitration to request expungement of the customer dispute 
information during the customer arbitration. Instead, similar to today, 
these associated persons may wait until after the customer arbitration 
has concluded to request expungement as a straight-in request.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ This requirement would help ensure that the panel from the 
Special Arbitrator Roster is aware of the outcome of the arbitration 
when deciding the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The option to wait until after the customer arbitration has 
concluded to request expungement is not a benefit created by the 
proposed rule change, but is instead currently permitted under the 
Codes. FINRA believes that an associated person who is not named in a 
non-simplified customer arbitration, or an associated person who is 
either named or not named in a simplified customer arbitration, should 
be able to seek expungement as a straight-in request and have their 
request decided by a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster.
    Associated persons who are not required and choose not to request 
expungement during the customer arbitration may also incur additional 
costs. Any incremental costs from not filing an expungement request 
during a customer arbitration, however, are not imposed by the proposed 
rule change. Instead, they are borne at the discretion of the parties 
who make the determination of when to request expungement, and are 
similar to the costs they would incur under the Codes today.
iv. Time Limit for Requesting Expungement in Simplified and Non-
Simplified Customer Arbitrations
    A named associated person or a party on-behalf-of an unnamed person 
would be required to request expungement in a simplified customer 
arbitration within 30 days of the date that FINRA provides notice of 
arbitrator appointment.\178\ A named associated person or a party 
requesting expungement on-behalf-of an unnamed person in a non-
simplified customer arbitration would be required to request 
expungement no later than 30 days before the first scheduled 
hearing.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ The proposed rule change would require that if the named 
associated person or party on-behalf-of an unnamed person requests 
expungement in a pleading other than an answer, the request must be 
filed within 30 days after the date FINRA provides the associated 
person with notice of arbitrator appointment, which is the last 
deadline provided to the parties in a simplified arbitration to 
submit additional documents before the case is submitted to the 
arbitrator. See proposed Rules 12800(d)(1)(B)(i) and 
12800(d)(2)(B)(i).
    \179\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(C)(i) and 
12805(a)(2)(C)(iii). The proposed rule change also provides that 
FINRA would notify state securities regulators, in the manner 
determined by FINRA, of an expungement request within 30 days of 
receiving a complete request for expungement. See proposed Rule 
12805(b). State securities regulators would, therefore, have 
additional time to review the request and decide whether to oppose 
expungement if confirmation of an expungement recommendation is 
later sought in court.

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

[[Page 62161]]

    Associated persons who do not request expungement within these time 
limits may incur additional costs that may include costs arising from 
delays in receiving a decision on the request and legal and forum fees. 
The member firms with which the brokers were associated at the time the 
customer dispute arose would also incur additional legal and forum 
fees. These costs would be imposed by the proposed rule change.
C. Time Limits for Filing Straight-In Requests
    The proposed rule change would also set forth requirements for an 
associated person to file a straight-in request. For customer dispute 
information reported to the CRD system after the effective date of the 
proposed rule change, the proposed rule change would require an 
associated person to file a straight-in request within two years of a 
customer arbitration or civil litigation closing, or, if no customer 
arbitration or civil litigation, within six years from the initial 
reporting of the customer complaint to the CRD system.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ See proposed Rules 13805(a)(2)(A)(iv) and 
13805(a)(2)(A)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would also require a two-year time limit 
for requests to expunge customer dispute information that arose from a 
customer arbitration or civil litigation that closed on or prior to the 
effective date of the proposed rule change or a six-year time limit to 
request expungement of customer dispute information arising from a 
customer complaint initially reported to the CRD system on or prior to 
the effective date of the proposed rule change.\181\ These time limits 
would begin from the effective date of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ See proposed Rules 13805(a)(2)(B)(i) and 
13805(a)(2)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster would have the 
experience, qualifications and training necessary to decide straight-in 
requests. These time limits may increase customer participation in the 
proceedings and the likelihood that the panel from the Special 
Arbitrator Roster receives the relevant evidence and testimony to 
decide an expungement request. The time limits would help ensure that 
the expungement hearing is held close in time to the customer 
arbitration or civil litigation, or the events that led to the customer 
dispute information disclosure, and foreclose the option of an 
associated person to choose the timing of a straight-in request to 
potentially reduce the likelihood of customer participation. Similar to 
other amendments proposed herein, an increase in customer participation 
may provide a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster with additional 
information to decide an expungement request and help ensure the 
accuracy of the customer dispute information contained in the CRD 
system and displayed through BrokerCheck.
    These time limits, however, may constrain an associated person from 
filing a straight-in request.\182\ Associated persons who would 
otherwise delay the filing of a straight-in request may incur 
additional costs to file a straight-in request within the required time 
limits (e.g., opportunity costs, as described above). These time limits 
may also constrain an associated person from filing more than one 
expungement request in the same straight-in request. For example, 
associated persons may lose the ability to delay the filing of a 
straight-in request to expunge a complaint from a particular customer 
until other customers make additional complaints, if the filing of the 
straight-in request to expunge the complaint of the first customer 
would be time barred. Instead, an associated person may be required (as 
a result of the time limits) to file more than one straight-in request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA 
expects that a number of associated persons would file a straight-in 
request to expunge customer dispute information reported to the CRD 
system prior to or soon after the effective date of the proposed 
rule change to help ensure that they are not constrained from 
seeking expungement because of the proposed time limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Associated persons who are restricted from including more than one 
request to expunge customer dispute information in the same straight-in 
request would incur additional legal and forum fees for each straight-
in request or not seek expungement for all of the disclosures. The 
member firm at which the associated person was associated at the time 
the customer disputes arose would incur additional legal and forum fees 
if the associated person were to file multiple, separate straight-in 
requests.
D. Time Limits for Straight-In Requests--Quantitative Description
    As discussed as part of the Economic Baseline, 3,725 expungement 
requests were filed as straight-in requests during the sample period. 
The following estimates demonstrate that the majority of these 
straight-in requests would not have been permitted under the proposed 
time limits, and associated persons may not have been able to include 
more than one expungement request in the same straight-in request. The 
estimates, however, do not take into account the potential change in 
the behavior of associated persons; associated persons would have 
incentive under the proposed amendments to file the straight-in 
requests within the time limits or otherwise lose the ability to make 
or file a request.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ The following estimates also do not take into account the 
number of straight-in requests of customer dispute information 
arising from a previous (non-simplified or simplified) customer 
arbitration which, under the proposed rule change, may have been 
decided as part of the customer arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the 3,725 expungement requests filed as a straight-in 
request, 1,140 requests followed a (non-simplified or simplified) 
customer arbitration (of the same underlying dispute). Two-hundred 
ninety of the 1,140 requests (25 percent) were filed as a straight-in 
request within the two-year time limit and would have been permitted 
under the proposed rule change. The remaining 850 requests (75 percent) 
were filed as a straight-in request after the two-year time limit and 
would not have been permitted. The median time from the close of the 
customer arbitration to the filing of the straight-in request was six 
years.
    The 3,725 expungement requests filed as a straight-in request also 
include 2,585 requests that did not follow a (non-simplified or 
simplified) customer arbitration (of the same underlying dispute). 
Among the 2,585 requests, 813 requests (31 percent) were filed as a 
straight-in request within six years from the initial reporting of the 
disclosure to the CRD system and would have been permitted under the 
proposed rule change. The remaining 1,772 requests (69 percent) were 
filed as a straight-in request after the six-year time limit and would 
not have been permitted.
    As discussed above, more than one expungement request can be made 
in a single arbitration, and the time limits may limit the ability of 
an associated person to include multiple expungement requests in the 
same straight-in request. The 3,725 expungement requests filed as a 
straight-in request relate to 1,778 arbitrations. Associated persons 
included more than one request to expunge customer dispute information 
in 810 of the 1,778 arbitrations. Under the proposed time limits, 
associated persons would not have been able to include all expungement 
requests in at least 225 of the 810 arbitrations.

[[Page 62162]]

E. Arbitrators or Panels Deciding Expungement Requests
    The proposed rule change would require that the arbitrator or panel 
from a non-simplified customer arbitration decide expungement requests 
during the arbitration if the arbitration closes by award after a 
hearing.\184\ In addition, the proposed rule change would require the 
arbitrator from a simplified customer arbitration to decide expungement 
requests if there is a full hearing, or in a separate expungement-only 
hearing after the simplified arbitration closes if the arbitration is 
decided ``on the papers'' or in a special proceeding.\185\ The proposed 
rule change would also require a randomly selected panel from the 
Special Arbitrator Roster to decide straight-in requests.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(D)(i) and 
12805(a)(2)(E)(i).
    \185\ See proposed Rule 12800(e)(1).
    \186\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is not structured to increase or decrease 
the likelihood that an arbitrator or panel recommends expungement in 
any individual hearing except as it relates to the merits of the 
request. The proposed rule change is structured, however, to place an 
arbitrator or panel in a better position to determine whether to 
recommend expungement of customer dispute information, and thereby help 
ensure the accuracy of the customer dispute information contained in 
the CRD system and displayed through BrokerCheck. Under the proposed 
rule change and in general, the arbitrator or panel that decides a 
request would either hear the full merits of the customer case or have 
additional training and qualifications when they are likely to receive 
information only from the party requesting expungement. In addition, 
panels from the Special Arbitrator Roster would be able to request 
evidence from the member firm at which the associated person was 
associated at the time the customer dispute arose.
    The proposed rule change is also structured to reduce the potential 
influence of associated persons and member firms on the selection of 
the arbitrator or panel that decides an expungement request. First, a 
panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster would be randomly selected to 
decide a straight-in request, thereby decreasing the extent to which an 
associated person and member firm with which the associated person was 
associated at the time the customer dispute arose may together select 
arbitrators who are more likely to recommend expungement.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ See supra Item II.A.1.(II)B.2.b., ``Straight-in Requests 
and the Special Arbitrator Roster, Composition of the Panel.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed rule change would foreclose the option for an 
associated person to withdraw a request and seek expungement of the 
same customer dispute information in a subsequent arbitration.\188\ 
Associated persons may exercise this option if they believe that they 
have a higher probability of obtaining an expungement recommendation 
with a different arbitrator or panel in another arbitration, and in 
particular if the associated person files a straight-in request against 
the member firm with which the broker was associated at the time the 
customer dispute arose. To the extent that the associated person and 
his or her employer's interests are aligned and both seek to increase 
the likelihood that expungement is recommended, they would together be 
expected to select arbitrators who may be more likely to recommend 
expungement.\189\ Though these proposed amendments are consistent with 
the regulatory intent to permit expungement in limited circumstances, 
it may decrease the likelihood that associated persons are able to 
obtain an award recommending expungement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ This includes the requirement for an unnamed person to 
provide written consent to an on-behalf-of request for it to 
proceed, thereby preventing an unnamed person from subsequently 
arguing that they were unaware of an expungement request on their 
behalf. See proposed Rule 12805(a)(2)(A). This also includes the 
requirement that a case be closed with prejudice if an associated 
person withdraws a straight-in request after a panel from the 
Special Arbitrator Roster is appointed (unless the panel decides 
otherwise). See proposed Rule 13805(a)(4). In the sample period, an 
associated person withdrew 155 of the 2,904 straight-in requests 
(five percent) filed in cases that closed. The 155 straight-in 
requests include 118 requests where an arbitrator or panel was 
appointed.
    \189\ A recent academic study finds evidence that suggests 
parties can use previous expungement decisions to predict the 
potential likelihood that an arbitrator would recommend expungement. 
See Colleen Honigsberg & Matthew Jacob, ``Deleting Misconduct: The 
Expungement of BrokerCheck Records,'' November 2018, https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SSRN-id3284738.pdf. 
The study also finds evidence that suggests both successful and 
unsuccessful expungement attempts predict future broker misconduct. 
An unsuccessful expungement attempt is associated with an 
approximately four times higher probability of future misconduct. 
Although expungement decisions are based on the information 
available at the time of the request, including the facts and 
circumstances of the arbitration, this finding suggests that the 
decisions being made by arbitrators are related to the potential 
future harm posed by the requesting broker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, under the proposed rule change, a three-person panel 
would consider and decide expungement requests during non-simplified 
customer arbitrations that close by award after a hearing and straight-
in requests. Expungement decisions by a three-person panel may differ 
from expungement decisions by a single arbitrator. In addition, the 
decisions may differ depending on the arbitrators selected and the 
interaction among the arbitrators when deciding an expungement request. 
The extent to which a three-person panel would decide an expungement 
request differently than a single arbitrator, however, is not 
known.\190\ As discussed above, expungement requests may be complex to 
resolve, particularly straight-in requests where customers typically do 
not participate in the expungement hearing. Thus, having three 
arbitrators available to ask questions, request evidence and to serve 
generally as fact-finders in the absence of customer input would help 
ensure that a complete factual record is created to support the 
arbitrators' decision in such expungement hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ Among the 2,746 expungement requests filed as a straight-
in request where an arbitrator or panel made a decision, a similar 
percentage of requests was recommended by a two- or three-person 
panel (306 of 360 requests, or 85 percent) as was recommended by a 
one-person panel (1,973 of 2,386 requests, or 83 percent). In 
addition, among the 976 expungement requests during a non-simplified 
or simplified customer arbitration where an arbitrator or panel made 
a decision, a similar percentage of requests was recommended by a 
two- or three-person panel (422 of 670 requests, or 63 percent) as 
was recommended by a one-person panel (173 of 306 requests, or 57 
percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Arbitrators or Panels Deciding Expungement Requests--Quantitative 
Description
    As discussed as part of the Economic Baseline, 5,159 of the 6,928 
expungement requests sought during the sample period were filed in an 
arbitration that closed. Among the 5,159 expungement requests, 4,521 
requests (88 percent) would have required a panel from the Special 
Arbitrator Roster. The 4,521 requests include 2,456 expungement 
requests made during a non-simplified customer arbitration that closed 
by award without a hearing or other than by award, and 2,065 requests 
that were filed as a straight-in request but did not relate to a 
previous (non-simplified or simplified) customer arbitration.
    An arbitrator or panel from a (non-simplified or simplified) 
customer arbitration would have been required to decide 590 of the 
5,159 expungement requests (11 percent). The 590 expungement requests 
include 292 requests made during a non-simplified customer arbitration 
that closed by

[[Page 62163]]

award after a hearing, 240 expungement requests made during a 
simplified customer arbitration, and 58 requests filed as a straight-in 
request to expunge customer dispute information arising from a previous 
non-simplified customer arbitration that closed by award after a 
hearing.
    Finally, a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster, or an 
arbitrator from a simplified customer arbitration, would have been 
required to decide the remaining 48 arbitration requests that relate to 
customer dispute information arising from a previous simplified 
customer arbitration. The arbitrator or panel that would have decided 
the request is dependent on whether an associated person, or a party 
on-behalf-of an associated person, would have requested expungement 
during the simplified arbitration.
G. Participation in Expungement Hearings
    The proposed rule change would require an associated person to 
appear personally at an expungement hearing.\191\ This requirement 
would provide the arbitrator or panel the opportunity to ask questions 
of an associated person to better assess his or her credibility. An 
associated person would be permitted to cross-examine and seek 
information from customers who testify.\192\ This may provide 
associated persons with the opportunity to substantiate their arguments 
in support of their expungement request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(2) and 13805(c)(2).
    \192\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(5)(A) and 13805(c)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Associated persons may incur additional costs to appear at an 
expungement hearing. The additional costs may depend on the method of 
appearance (i.e., by telephone, videoconference, or in person), which, 
under the proposed rule change, would be determined by the arbitrator 
or panel. For example, associated persons who would otherwise not 
appear in person may incur additional costs under the proposed rule 
change if they are so required. The additional costs include the time 
and expense to appear, and other direct and indirect costs (e.g., 
opportunity costs) associated with the associated person's appearance.
    The proposed rule change would also help encourage customer 
participation in an expungement hearing. As noted above, the proposed 
rule change would require that a named associated person request 
expungement during a non-simplified customer arbitration and that the 
arbitrator or panel decide the expungement request if the arbitration 
closes by award after a hearing. In addition, an expungement request 
during a non-simplified customer arbitration would be considered and 
decided by the arbitrator or panel from that arbitration.
    Further, the proposed time limits for filing straight-in requests 
may increase customer participation during these arbitrations. The 
proposed rule change would also provide customers the option to appear 
at an expungement hearing using whichever method is convenient for 
them. The proposed rule change would also codify elements of the 
Guidance that permit the customer to testify, cross-examine the 
associated person and other witnesses, present evidence at the hearing 
and make opening and closing arguments.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ Other amendments to the proposed rule change would also 
help encourage customer participation. For example, the proposed 
rule change would allow customers to be represented at an 
expungement hearing and thereby mitigate any potential concern they 
may have regarding a direct confrontation with the associated 
person. In addition, the proposed rule change provides that FINRA 
would notify the customer of the time and place of the expungement 
hearing. Customers would still retain the option to participate in 
the expungement hearing or provide their position on the expungement 
request in writing. The costs to participate would therefore be 
borne at the customers' discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Impact on Business and Professional Opportunities
    As a result of the proposed rule change, associated persons may 
determine that the additional costs to seek expungement relief are 
higher than the anticipated benefits. In addition, although the 
proposed rule change is intended to help ensure arbitrators recommend 
expungement when appropriate as it relates to the merits of the 
request, an arbitrator or panel may be less likely to recommend 
expungement depending on the information that becomes available for the 
reasons described above. This may cause associated persons not to seek 
expungement where expungement is likely (or unlikely) to be 
recommended.
    Associated persons who no longer seek, or are not able to expunge 
customer dispute information from the CRD system and its display 
through BrokerCheck, or are delayed in doing so, may experience a loss 
of business and professional opportunities. The loss of business and 
professional opportunities by one associated person, however, may be 
the gain of another. Associated persons who may benefit in this regard 
include those who still determine that the additional costs to seek 
expungement relief under the proposed rule change is less than the 
anticipated benefits and continue to seek expungement of customer 
dispute information, and other associated persons who do not have 
similar disclosures.
    A firm or associated person can also initiate an expungement 
proceeding directly in a court of competent jurisdiction without first 
going through any arbitration proceeding. The proposed rule change may 
incent firms or associated persons to initiate an expungement 
proceeding directly in a court of competent jurisdiction without first 
going through any arbitration proceeding. For some firms and associated 
persons, the anticipated costs to first go through arbitration may be 
greater than the similar costs to proceed directly in a court of 
competent jurisdiction. Firms and associated persons who would 
otherwise first go through arbitration as a result of the proposed rule 
change may incur additional costs to seek expungement relief.
    The number of firms or associated persons who would instead 
initiate an expungement proceeding directly in a court of competent 
jurisdiction is dependent not only on the additional costs under the 
proposed rule change, but the costs a firm or associated person would 
expect to incur in the different forums to initiate an expungement 
proceeding. This information is generally not available, and 
accordingly the potential effect of the proposed rule change on direct-
to-court expungement requests is uncertain.
I. Other Economic Effects
    Finally, the proposed rule change may have other marginal economic 
effects. First, the prohibition of a subsequent expungement request 
would decrease the potential inefficient allocation of resources 
resulting from a subsequent request that would have resulted in the 
same decision (i.e., denial) as the first. The resources of the forum 
allocated to the additional expungement request could instead be used 
for other claims or requests that were not previously adjudicated or 
for other purposes.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ The resources relate to the specific costs to administer 
the claim, as well as the overall attendant costs to administer the 
forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the proposed rule change may increase the efficiency of the 
forum by requiring that a party provide certain information when filing 
an expungement request. The information includes identification of the 
customer dispute information that is the subject of the request, and 
whether expungement of the same customer dispute information was 
previously requested

[[Page 62164]]

and, if so, how it was decided. This would increase the efficiency of 
the forum by enabling FINRA to identify and track a request through the 
expungement process, and by alerting arbitrators and FINRA to another 
expungement request of the same customer dispute information. The 
efficiency of the forum would also increase by requiring an unnamed 
person to consent to an on-behalf-of expungement request in writing. 
This would help ensure that an unnamed person is aware of the request 
and prevent another expungement request by the unnamed person of the 
same customer dispute information.
    In addition, the proposed rule change may affect the value of the 
customer dispute information to describe the conduct of associated 
persons. The change in the value of the information depends on the 
merit of the disclosures that would have otherwise been expunged. The 
merit of these disclosures also depends on many factors which are 
difficult to predict. These factors include the incentive of parties to 
file an expungement request under the proposed rule change, the 
decisions by the arbitrator or panel to recommend expungement dependent 
on the information that is available, and the merit of the customer 
dispute information that would have otherwise been sought to be 
expunged.
    As stated above, the proposed rule change is not structured to 
increase or decrease the likelihood that an arbitrator or panel 
recommends expungement in any individual hearing except as it relates 
to the merits of the request. The proposed rule change may, however, 
reduce the incentive for an associated person to request expungement 
even when warranted. The effect of the proposed rule change on the 
extent to which the customer dispute information available in the CRD 
system (and its public display through BrokerCheck) accurately 
describes the conduct of associated persons is, therefore, uncertain.
4. Alternatives Considered
    Alternatives to the proposed rule change include amendments that 
were proposed in Notice 17-42. Notice 17-42 proposed to restrict when a 
party can file or serve an expungement request during a customer 
arbitration to 60 days before the first hearing session begins. 
Although 60 days would provide a customer with more time to address an 
expungement request, 60 days may further restrict a party from seeking 
expungement during a customer arbitration relative to the 30 days 
before the first scheduled hearing begins in the proposed rule change. 
FINRA believes that the proposed 30-day period would provide customers 
with enough time to address an expungement request, and FINRA with 
sufficient time to notify the states of the request. FINRA also 
believes that 30 days would reduce the potential that parties would 
lose their ability to file an expungement request during an 
arbitration.
    Notice 17-42 also proposed that an arbitrator or panel find that 
the customer dispute information has ``no investor protection or 
regulatory value,'' and that there must be a unanimous rather than a 
majority decision by a panel to recommend expungement. These proposed 
amendments may increase the difficulty for an associated person to 
receive an expungement recommendation, and thereby deter an associated 
person from seeking expungement. After considering the comments, FINRA 
has determined not to propose that the panel must find ``no investor 
protection or regulatory value'' to recommend expungement. FINRA agrees 
with some commenters that the standard may, if codified into rule 
language, create confusion among arbitrators and the potential for 
inconsistent application among different arbitrators and panels.\195\ A 
majority decision is also consistent with what is required for other 
decisions in customer and industry arbitrations. FINRA also believes 
that the overall proposal, coupled with the existing standards in FINRA 
Rule 2080, would be sufficient to help preserve in the CRD system 
information that is valuable to investors and regulators, while 
allowing associated persons to remove information that is inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ FINRA notes that in its Order approving NASD Rule 2130 
(now FINRA Rule 2080), which describes the current findings that 
arbitrators must make to recommend expungement, the SEC stated that 
``it believes the proposal strikes the appropriate balance between 
permitting members and associated persons to remove information from 
the CRD system that holds no regulatory value, while at the same 
time preserving information on the CRD system that is valuable to 
investors and regulators.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
48933 (December 16, 2003) 68 FR 74667, 74672 (December 24, 2003) 
(Order Approving File No. SR-NASD-2002-168).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another alternative to the proposed rule change includes different 
time limits for an associated person to file a straight-in request. 
Although shorter (longer) time limits may increase (decrease) customer 
participation in the proceedings and the likelihood that the panel from 
the Special Arbitrator Roster receives the relevant evidence and 
testimony to decide an expungement request, shorter (longer) time 
limits may further (less) constrain an associated person from filing a 
straight-in request or including more than one expungement request in 
the same straight-in request. FINRA believes that the time limits 
proposed herein would facilitate customer participation but also 
provide associated persons sufficient opportunity to file a straight-in 
request.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed 
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    In December 2017, FINRA published Notice 17-42, requesting comment 
on proposed amendments to the expungement process including 
establishing a roster of arbitrators with additional training and 
specific backgrounds or experience from which a panel would be selected 
to decide an associated person's request for expungement of customer 
dispute information. The arbitrators from this roster would decide 
expungement requests where the customer arbitration is not resolved on 
the merits or the associated person files a straight-in request to 
expunge customer dispute information. FINRA received 70 comments in 
response to Notice 17-42.\196\ A copy of Notice 17-42 is attached [sic] 
as Exhibit 2a. A list of comment letters received in response to Notice 
17-42 is attached [sic] as Exhibit 2b and copies of the comment letters 
are attached [sic] as Exhibit 2c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ All references to commenters are to the comment letters as 
listed in Exhibit 2b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, individual commenters supported some aspects of the 
proposal and raised concerns with others. A summary of the comments and 
FINRA's responses are discussed below.
1. Requirement To Request Expungement During a Customer Arbitration
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that an associated person who is 
named as a party in a customer arbitration must request expungement 
during the arbitration or be prohibited from seeking to expunge the 
customer dispute information arising from the customer's statement of 
claim during any subsequent proceeding under the Codes.
    NASAA and PIABA supported the proposed limitation. NASAA stated 
that the limitation would help ensure timelier expungement requests and 
help avoid requests made years after the underlying customer 
arbitration has closed. PIABA stated that it did not believe that 
requiring associated persons to request expungement during the customer 
arbitration would result in more expungement requests because the

[[Page 62165]]

rule proposal contained ``heightened standards applicable to 
expungement requests'' and a ``clear process for requesting expungement 
following the close of the customer case,'' which may cause 
``associated persons [to] be more deliberate in making expungement 
requests.''
    Some commenters opposed the limitation for a variety of 
reasons.\197\ Cornell stated that it ``could lead associated persons to 
request expungement in every dispute in order to preserve the right to 
request expungement.'' Keesal stated that these additional expungement 
requests could result in increased expenses to associated persons and 
member firms and ``could impede the goals of protecting investors and 
ensuring that FINRA arbitration remains an expedient and cost-effective 
forum.'' Herskovits expressed a concern that an associated person ``may 
be unaware of the important rights he is waiving by failing to file a 
request for expungement in the underlying arbitration.'' Saretsky, 
responding to FINRA's concern that customers and documents may be 
unavailable when an associated person files a separate expungement 
request years after the customer arbitration closed, stated that 
customers can be located through counsel or internet searches, and that 
securities industry rules mandate the retention of important customer 
and account records for several years. JonesBell and Behr stated that 
the requirement to request expungement during the customer arbitration 
should apply only to named associated persons who have also appeared in 
the arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \197\ See Behr, Cornell, Herskovits, JonesBell, Keesal and 
Saretsky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that requiring an associated person who is named in 
a customer arbitration to request expungement during that arbitration 
or be prohibited from doing so should help limit expungement requests 
filed years after the customer arbitration concludes, facilitate 
customer participation in expungement hearings and help ensure that 
relevant evidence does not become stale or unavailable.\198\ The 
proposed requirement would also help ensure that the panel that has 
heard the merits of the customer's claim at a hearing would decide the 
expungement request. Accordingly, FINRA believes that all associated 
persons who are named in non-simplified arbitrations should be required 
to request expungement during the arbitration, and that the requirement 
should not depend on whether the associated person has chosen to enter 
an appearance in response to the complaint. In addition, FINRA notes 
that if the named associated person requests expungement, under the 
proposed rule change, the associated person would be required to appear 
at the expungement hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See supra Item II.B.3.D., ``Time Limits for Straight-in 
Requests--Quantitative Description.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments would also provide a detailed framework 
governing the expungement process, which should help ensure that both 
associated persons and customers are aware of their rights.
    FINRA acknowledges commenters' concerns that the proposed 
limitation could potentially result in an increase in the number of 
expungement requests and their associated costs. To address this 
concern, as well as the related concern that the requirement could 
result in expungement requests by associated persons simply to preserve 
their right to request expungement, FINRA has modified the proposed 
rule to allow the associated person to make the request 30 days before 
the hearing in the customer arbitration.\199\ This should provide 
sufficient time during the customer arbitration for the associated 
person to evaluate whether an expungement request is warranted and help 
avoid unnecessary expungement requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ See supra Item II.A.1.(II)A.1.a.i., ``Method of Requesting 
Expungement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Deadline To File Expungement Request During a Customer Arbitration
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that an expungement request made in 
a pleading during a customer arbitration must be made no later than 60 
days before the first hearing session begins. Three commenters opposed 
the proposal, stating that the 60-day filing deadline was an 
impractical or unnecessary restriction that could cause an associated 
person to miss the deadline and, therefore, an opportunity to file a 
request.\200\ These commenters suggested that the proposal retain the 
status quo, which allows an associated person to request expungement up 
to and during any hearing. One commenter, Keesal, supported a deadline 
of 60 days before the first scheduled hearing date, provided, however, 
that the associated person ``has appeared in [the] Underlying Customer 
Case.'' Keesal stated that this would ``ensure[ ] that all 
participants'' were ``on notice of the issues to be addressed and 
determined at the evidentiary hearing.'' SIFMA stated that the proposed 
requirement ``to file for expungement 60 days prior to the first 
scheduled hearing date'' was impractical and would require the payment 
of expungement fees even though a large portion of cases settle within 
60 days of the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ See Behr, JonesBell and SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, FINRA does not believe that it is 
necessary to require a 60-day filing deadline. Instead, the proposed 
rule change would require that an expungement request be filed no later 
than 30 days before the first scheduled hearing.\201\ This should 
provide the parties with sufficient case preparation time, as the 
expungement issues will overlap with the issues raised by the 
customer's claim. If a named associated person seeks to request 
expungement after the 30-day filing deadline, the panel would be 
required to decide whether to grant an extension and permit the 
request.\202\ The purpose of the deadline is to provide the parties 
other than the associated person with sufficient notice that 
expungement will be addressed at the hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ See supra Item II.A.1.(II)A.1.a.i., ``Method of Requesting 
Expungement.''
    \202\ See supra note 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA has determined that requiring the party to 
request expungement at least 30 days before the first ``hearing 
session,'' which is typically the initial pre-hearing conference 
(``IPHC'') rather than the first hearing on the merits, may not provide 
the requesting party with sufficient time to make an informed decision 
about whether to request expungement.\203\ Therefore, FINRA has 
modified the proposal to require that an expungement request must be 
made 30 days before the first scheduled ``hearing'' begins to provide 
time for the requesting party to make a better-informed decision.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ The term ``hearing session'' means any meeting between the 
parties and arbitrator(s) of four hours or less, including a hearing 
or a prehearing conference. See FINRA Rules 12100(p) and 13100(p). 
The IPHC is scheduled after the panel is appointed. During the IPHC, 
the panel will set discovery, briefing, and motions deadlines, 
schedule subsequent hearing sessions, and address other preliminary 
matters. The parties may agree, however, to forgo the IPHC. See 
generally FINRA Rules 12500 and 13500.
    \204\ Under the Codes, a ``hearing'' means a hearing on the 
merits. See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Panel From the Customer Arbitration Decides Expungement Requests 
Where the Customer Arbitration Closes by Award After a Hearing
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that if the customer arbitration 
closes by award, the panel from the customer arbitration would consider 
and decide the expungement request during the customer arbitration.
    Some commenters disagreed with this aspect of the proposal and 
suggested

[[Page 62166]]

that a panel selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster should decide 
all expungement requests, even if the customer arbitration was decided 
by an award.\205\ For example, PIABA stated that a panel from the 
Special Arbitrator Roster should decide the expungement request 
separate from the customer's claim because the ``decision a panel is 
asked to make with respect to expungement is different than deciding 
whether or not to find liability on a customer claim'' and because it 
is ``unfair to require a customer to participate in a potentially 
lengthy expungement hearing that they did not ask for.'' Grebenik 
stated that the expungement request should be evaluated separately by 
an independent panel because the arbitrator may ``have bias'' and ``has 
heard comments and issues from the customer [about] the actual claim.'' 
AdvisorLaw stated that all expungement requests should receive the 
``same level of review and consideration by a specially trained 
arbitration panel.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ See AdvisorLaw, Georgia State, Grebenik, PIABA, St. 
John's, Tinklenberg and UNLV. In addition, St. John's ``strongly 
agree[d] with requiring associated or unnamed persons to wait until 
the conclusion of a customer's case to file an expungement 
request.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cornell expressed a concern that the proposed requirement could 
``transform hearings designed to determine the merits of a customer 
dispute into lengthy expungement hearings.'' Cornell proposed, as an 
alternative, that the same panel from the customer arbitration make the 
expungement determination, but do so in a separate proceeding to avoid 
inconveniencing the customer.
    Keesal questioned whether the proposed requirement that the panel 
from the customer arbitration decide the expungement request if the 
customer arbitration ``closes by award'' would require the panel to 
decide an expungement request if the cases closes as a result of an 
order dismissing the case.
    In response to the comments, FINRA is clarifying that the panel 
from the customer arbitration would be required to decide the 
expungement request and include its decision in the award if the 
arbitration ``closes by award after a hearing'' instead of where the 
arbitration ``closes by award.'' FINRA believes that where the panel 
from the customer arbitration has heard the parties' presentation of 
the evidence about the customer's claim, that same panel is best 
situated to decide the expungement request. In addition, it would 
generally be more efficient and less costly for the panel from the 
customer arbitration to decide the expungement request in these 
circumstances. Although FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1) requires the panel to 
make a separate, different determination than its determination on the 
merits of the customer's claim, the evidence offered with respect to 
both determinations should generally overlap. Accordingly, FINRA does 
not believe that it would overly burden the parties if, when the 
customer arbitration closes by award after a hearing, the panel must 
also decide the expungement request in addition to the merits of the 
customer's claim.
4. Qualifications of Arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that to qualify for the Special 
Arbitrator Roster, a public chairperson would be required to: (i) Have 
completed enhanced expungement training; (ii) be admitted to the 
practice of law in at least one jurisdiction; and (iii) have five 
years' experience in litigation, federal or state securities 
litigation, administrative law, service as a securities regulator or 
service as a judge. Commenters generally supported the proposed 
requirements,\206\ but were split on whether the members of the Special 
Arbitrator Roster should be required to be attorneys.\207\ One 
commenter, Black, did not oppose the proposed qualifications but 
suggested that they would likely result in fewer eligible arbitrators 
for straight-in requests. PIABA stated that the Special Arbitrator 
Roster should be made up of attorneys because it would be difficult for 
FINRA, in some areas of the country, to alternatively fill the Special 
Arbitrator Roster with local chair-qualified arbitrators that had 
served on three arbitrations through award. PIABA also stated that 
arbitrators with legal training may be better equipped to make the 
distinction between the FINRA Rule 2080 grounds for expungement and 
deciding the merits of the underlying claim. Keesal, in contrast, 
stated that there was no rationale for allowing non-attorneys to decide 
expungement requests made during the customer arbitration, but not 
brought as a stand-alone claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ See, e.g., SIFMA (supporting the proposal, and stating 
that more highly qualified and trained arbitrators should lead to a 
more efficient and fair process); NASAA (supporting the proposal, 
and stating that the extent to which the panels truly appreciate the 
nuanced regulatory issues related to expungement largely depended on 
the content and effectiveness of the proposed enhanced expungement 
training).
    \207\ See AdvisorLaw, FSI, Gocek, Keesel, Osiason, Rodriguez and 
White (all opposing the requirement that members of the Special 
Arbitrator Roster be attorneys). But cf. Cornell, Georgia State, 
NASAA, PIABA, Schlein, SIFMA, St. John's and Tinklenberg (all 
supporting the requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters also expressed concerns that the arbitrators on the 
Special Arbitrator Roster were not required to have securities industry 
experience.\208\ FSI stated that without this background ``it may be 
difficult to appreciate whether information has regulatory significance 
or investor protection value.'' AdvisorLaw stated that ``[r]equiring 
all expungement arbitrators to have a minimum of five years' experience 
with the financial services industry [would be] appropriate considering 
the complexity of expungement requests in cases involving customer 
dispute information.'' In contrast, Public Citizen suggested that at 
least one FINRA employee who meets the requirements of the Special 
Arbitrator Roster be a member of every three-person panel that 
considers an expungement request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See AdvisorLaw, Behr, FSI and JonesBell. Behr and 
JonesBell also criticized the proposal as allowing claimants' 
attorneys ``whose business is the ligation of customer complaints'' 
to serve on the Special Arbitrator Roster. FINRA notes, however, 
that the proposal requires that arbitrators on the Special 
Arbitrator Roster be public arbitrators, and that FINRA's definition 
of public arbitrators excludes, among other persons, those who 
devote 20 percent or more of their professional time to representing 
parties in disputes concerning investment accounts or transactions, 
or employment relationships within the financial industry. See FINRA 
Rules 12100(aa) and 13100(x); see also supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, FINRA has determined not to propose 
requiring that the members of the Special Arbitrator Roster be 
attorneys; instead, they would be required to be public arbitrators who 
have evidenced successful completion of, and agreement with, enhanced 
expungement training, and have served as an arbitrator through award on 
at least four customer-initiated arbitrations.\209\ FINRA believes that 
the non-attorneys on its roster who meet these qualifications and 
complete enhanced expungement training should be appropriately 
knowledgeable and experienced to decide straight-in requests. The 
requirement that the arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster be 
public arbitrators should help ensure that the arbitrators are free of 
bias. The requirement that they have served on four cases through to 
award would help ensure that the members of the Special Arbitrator 
Roster have the necessary knowledge and experience to conduct hearings 
in the forum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(2)(B). In addition, to qualify 
for the Special Arbitrator Roster, the arbitrators must be 
chairpersons and, therefore, will have completed the training that 
arbitrators must complete before they can be added to the 
chairperson roster. See also supra note 80.

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

[[Page 62167]]

    Although FINRA believes that a sufficient number of arbitrators on 
its roster would meet these additional qualifications, if the 
Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA would engage in 
efforts to recruit arbitrators for the Special Arbitrator Roster. FINRA 
notes that its Office of Dispute Resolution has embarked on an 
aggressive campaign to recruit new arbitrators, with a particular focus 
on adding arbitrators from diverse backgrounds, professions and 
geographical locations.\210\ FINRA's commitment and focus on this 
critical initiative have resulted in increases in under-represented 
categories of arbitrators.\211\ FINRA believes its continued commitment 
to this important initiative will help the forum improve the quality, 
depth and diversity of its public chairperson roster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ See Our Commitment to Achieving Arbitrator and Mediator 
Diversity at FINRA, https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/our-commitment-achieving-arbitrator-and-mediator-diversity-finra.
    \211\ See supra note 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Special Arbitrator Roster Decides Expungement Requests if the 
Customer Arbitration Closes Other Than by Award or by Award Without a 
Hearing
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that if the customer arbitration 
closes other than by award (e.g., the parties settle the arbitration), 
the panel in that arbitration would not decide the associated person's 
expungement request. Instead, the associated person would be permitted 
to file an expungement request as a new claim under the Industry Code 
against the member firm at which he or she was associated at the time 
of the events giving rise to the customer dispute.
    The SEC Investor Advocate supported the proposal because FINRA's 
data showed that where the arbitration case was not decided on the 
merits, the expungement rate was ``simply too high for an extraordinary 
remedy.'' (emphasis in original). NASAA also supported the proposal, 
stating that ``post-settlement expungement hearings often consist of a 
one-sided presentation of the facts'' because ``investors and their 
counsel have little incentive to participate after the customer's 
concerns have been resolved.''
    Some commenters disagreed with the proposal to require the 
associated person to file a new arbitration under the Industry Code if 
the customer arbitration closes other than by award, as inefficient or 
burdensome on associated persons.\212\ As an alternative, SIFMA 
suggested that the panel from the customer arbitration decide the 
request; but, to address FINRA's concern for greater training and 
increased qualifications for those arbitrators determining expungement, 
SIFMA suggested that the proposed rule change require that at least one 
arbitrator on every three-person panel be selected from the Special 
Arbitrator Roster at the inception of each customer arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ See Behr, Herskovits, JonesBell, Saretsky and SIFMA. 
Herskovits also stated that ``[financial advisors] will respond to 
the proposed rule by filing a counterclaim or cross claim for 
expungement in the customer arbitration, thus preventing the 
customer arbitration from closing before a hearing is held on 
expungement or the [financial advisors'] other claims for relief.'' 
FINRA notes, however, that under the proposed rule change, a request 
for expungement relief would not prevent a customer arbitration from 
closing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Saretsky stated that associated persons should be able to name the 
customer, and that the ``minor inconvenience'' to the customer was 
outweighed by the harm to the associated person. PIABA stated that it 
would be ``inappropriate'' to name customers. St. John's ``support[ed] 
allowing the proposed expungement process to proceed without the 
customer having to be named a party to the request.''
    Schlein expressed concerns that a former employing member firm may 
have ``little or no economic incentive to cooperate in an expungement 
proceeding,'' and that it ``would also be difficult for the panel to 
elicit potentially relevant facts'' where the ``economic and 
reputational interests of the associated person and the employer are 
aligned.'' Schlein also stated that an ``aggrieved customer has no 
economic incentive to participate in an expungement proceeding that 
occurs only after the underlying case has concluded.'' Schlein also 
expressed concern that expungement requests would be referred to the 
Special Arbitrator Roster even if the matter settled on the eve of 
hearing, when it may be more efficient and promote investor protection 
to require the existing panel to hear the expungement request. Schlein 
stated that ``FINRA could ameliorate the possibility that a panel might 
receive one-sided information'' by (i) providing the expungement panel 
with significant filings from the underlying customer dispute, (ii) 
permitting the panel to review the parties' settlement papers and (iii) 
giving the associated person, firm, and the customer the right to 
provide the panel with transcripts of the underlying customer 
proceeding.
    FINRA believes that where there has not been a hearing on the 
merits of the customer's claim, the members of the Special Arbitrator 
Roster, who would be public chairpersons who have served on at least 
four customer arbitrations in which a hearing was held and received 
enhanced expungement training, would be better situated to decide 
expungement requests than the panel from the customer arbitration. 
FINRA does not believe that requiring the associated person to file a 
new arbitration under the Industry Code would unduly burden the 
associated person--instead of presenting evidence related to the 
expungement request to the arbitrators in the customer arbitration in a 
separate expungement hearing, they would instead present the evidence 
supporting the expungement request to a panel randomly selected from 
the Special Arbitrator Roster.
    FINRA shares commenters' concerns that the factual record could be 
less well-developed where a straight-in request is filed against a 
member firm and the associated person or member firm's interests are 
aligned, or where the customer does not participate. FINRA does not 
believe, however, that the customer should be named as a respondent or 
be required to participate in an expungement proceeding after the 
customer's claim has been resolved (e.g., after the claim is settled). 
Instead, the proposed rule change addresses concerns that straight-in 
requests filed against the member firm may be non-adversarial or lack 
customer participation by, among other things (i) requiring that 
straight-in requests be decided by three randomly selected public 
chairpersons with enhanced training and experience,\213\ (ii) requiring 
the panel to review the settlement documents,\214\ (iii) granting the 
panel the explicit authority to request from the associated person, the 
member firm at which he or she was associated at the time the customer 
dispute arose or other party requesting expungement, any documentary, 
testimonial or other evidence that it deems relevant to the expungement 
request,\215\ and (iv) including provisions to encourage and facilitate 
customer participation in expungement hearings.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ See supra Item II.A.1.(II)B.2.b., ``Straight-in Requests 
and the Special Arbitrator Roster, Composition of the Panel.''
    \214\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(7) and 13805(c)(7).
    \215\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(6) and 13805(c)(6).
    \216\ See supra Item II.A.1.(II)D.3., ``Customer's Participation 
during the Expungement Hearing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters' concerns, FINRA has modified the 
language in the proposed rule change to require that a straight-in 
request be filed against the

[[Page 62168]]

member firm at which he or she was associated ``at the time the 
customer dispute arose,'' consistent with the language used in other 
FINRA rules, instead of ``at the time of the events giving rise to the 
customer dispute.'' \217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ See, e.g., FINRA Rules 12901(a)(1)(C) and 13903(b); see 
also Kessal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Three Randomly Selected Arbitrators Decide Straight-In Requests
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that the NLSS would randomly select 
three public chairpersons to serve on the Special Arbitrator Roster who 
would decide the request for expungement, and that the first arbitrator 
selected would be the chairperson. The parties would not be permitted 
to agree to fewer than three arbitrators or to the use of pre-selected 
arbitrators. The associated person seeking expungement would not be 
permitted to strike any arbitrators, but would be able to challenge a 
selected arbitrator for cause.
    PIABA and AdvisorLaw supported the proposed random selection of 
three arbitrators. PIABA stated that the random selection of three 
arbitrators would ``reduce the risk of arbitrators being concerned 
about ruling against an associated person for fear they may not be 
selected for another panel.''
    Other commenters opposed the proposed rule change. SIFMA expressed 
concerns that not permitting parties to rank and strike arbitrators 
would remove the parties' involvement and input.\218\ SIFMA also stated 
that there was no compelling need to use three rather than a single 
arbitrator, and that the proposal would increase the financial burden 
on registered representatives seeking expungement. Walter stated that a 
single FINRA-qualified arbitrator with the special qualifications would 
be ``more than qualified to make a determination as to expungement'' 
and that ``[h]aving to coordinate the schedules of three arbitrators 
will delay the processing and will impose unnecessarily high additional 
costs on all parties involved.'' \219\ Tinklenberg opposed the three-
person panel requirement because of the associated costs. Baritz stated 
that the three-person panel requirement would increase expenses to 
associated persons and the ``time necessary to rank and choose a 
panel,'' and ``significantly delay the process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ SIFMA also proposed that ``to preserve arbitrator 
neutrality and foster greater transparency,'' FINRA make publicly 
available all training materials, communications with arbitrators 
regarding expungement, and documents related to the addition, 
removal or exclusion of any arbitrators from the roster. FINRA notes 
that making such communications and documents publicly available 
could have a chilling effect on arbitrator recruitment and 
communications. FINRA does, however, make expungement training 
materials publicly available. See supra note 82.
    \219\ See also Saretsky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Keesal opposed the random selection of three arbitrators as unfair 
to associated persons, and suggested that FINRA ``randomly select a 
minimum of 12 proposed arbitrators to serve on an expungement case, 
from which the associated person and anyone else involved in the case 
can rank and strike the proposed panelists.''
    FINRA notes that since straight-in requests may be complex, may not 
be actively opposed by another party and the customer or customer's 
representative typically does not appear at the hearing, having three 
arbitrators from the Special Arbitrator Roster available to ask 
questions and request evidence would help ensure that a complete 
factual record is developed to support the arbitrators' decision. In 
addition, FINRA believes that requiring two out of three randomly 
selected public chairpersons with enhanced training and qualifications 
to agree that expungement is appropriate in straight-in requests should 
help FINRA maintain the integrity of its CRD records and ensure that 
expungement is recommended in limited circumstances and only when one 
of the FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1) grounds applies.
    FINRA does not believe that selecting three rather than one 
arbitrator would overly burden the parties during the proceeding or 
result in undue delay. As the parties would not be permitted to rank or 
strike these arbitrators, this should shorten the average length of the 
proceeding.\220\ In addition, pursuant to FINRA Rule 13403, FINRA would 
send the lists generated by the NLSS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ Under the Codes, the lists of ranked arbitrators must be 
completed and returned to the Director no more than 20 days after 
the date the Director sends the lists to the parties. See., e.g., 
FINRA Rules 12403(c)(3) and 13404. However, the parties may agree to 
extend the due date. See FINRA Rules 12105 and 13105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA recognizes that the proposed random arbitrator selection 
process would limit party input on arbitrator selection. However, the 
arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster would have the experience, 
qualifications and training necessary to conduct a fair and impartial 
expungement hearing in accordance with the proposed rules, and to 
render a recommendation based on a complete factual record developed 
during the expungement hearing. FINRA believes that the higher 
standards that the arbitrators must meet to serve on the Special 
Arbitrator Roster should mitigate the impact of the absence of party 
input on the selection of arbitrators. In addition, associated persons 
and member firms would still be permitted to challenge any arbitrator 
for cause.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ See proposed Rule 13806(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Simplified Arbitrations
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed to require that an associated 
person or unnamed person wait until the conclusion of a customer's 
simplified arbitration case to file an expungement request, which would 
be filed under the Industry Code against the member firm at which he or 
she was associated at the time the customer dispute rose and would be 
heard by a panel selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster.
    Some commenters supported the proposal.\222\ PIABA stated that it 
would address a flaw in the current process, whereby a hearing is held 
to consider expungement even if the customer has not requested a 
hearing under FINRA Rule 12800, and that it would eliminate delays in 
securing an award because the arbitrator is considering the request for 
expungement. PIABA also stated that a single arbitrator should not be 
permitted to decide an expungement request in a simplified arbitration 
because the goals of the proposed amendments should not be affected 
simply because the misconduct involved $50,000 or less.\223\ The SEC 
Investor Advocate stated that it would be easier for a broker to 
convince one arbitrator to recommend expungement. St. John's stated 
that ``separating the expungement request from the underlying customer 
case'' should result in ``faster decisions in simplified cases.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ See NASAA, PIABA, The SEC Investor Advocate, St. John's 
and UNLV.
    \223\ See also UNLV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters opposed the proposed change and stated that the 
arbitrator who heard the evidence in the underlying simplified customer 
arbitration would be most qualified to determine an expungement 
request, and that it was unfair to impose the burden of a subsequent 
arbitration on the associated person in this circumstance.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ See Behr, JonesBell and Keesal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, FINRA has revised the proposed rule 
change to provide that if a party requests expungement during a 
simplified arbitration, the single arbitrator from the simplified 
arbitration would be required to decide the

[[Page 62169]]

expungement request, regardless of how the simplified arbitration case 
closes (e.g., even if the case settles).\225\ FINRA believes that it is 
appropriate for the single arbitrator in a simplified arbitration case 
to decide expungement requests, regardless of how the underlying case 
closes, due to the lower monetary requirement and generally less 
complex nature of these cases. To address concerns that customers 
should not be required to participate in a hearing addressing 
expungement requests in simplified arbitrations, the proposed rule 
change would require arbitrators to hold a separate expungement-only 
hearing after the customer's dispute is decided to consider the 
expungement request if the customer elects to have his or her claim 
decided on the papers or through an Option Two special proceeding. The 
arbitrator would be required to issue a subsequent, separate award in 
connection with the expungement-only hearing.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ See proposed Rule 12800(e)(1).
    \226\ See proposed Rule 12800(e)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Fees That Parties Will Incur To File a New Claim Under the Industry 
Code To Request Expungement
    Some commenters expressed concerns that if an associated person 
were required to file a separate claim under the Industry Code to 
request expungement after the customer arbitration closes other than by 
award, the member firm and associated person would be assessed the 
filing fee, member surcharge and process fees twice, in both the 
underlying customer arbitration and the separate straight-in 
request.\227\ SIFMA stated that this could increase the costs of 
expungement and have the ``indirect effect of increasing the costs of 
settlement, potentially discouraging settlement in smaller cases due to 
the increased costs associated with expungement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\ See Janney, Keesal and SIFMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that it is appropriate to assess the member 
surcharge and process fee for straight-in requests because they are 
separate arbitrations before a separate panel of specially trained 
arbitrators. The member firm, having not previously paid a member 
surcharge and process fee for the expungement request, would be 
assessed these fees when and if a straight-in request is filed. FINRA 
would not, however, assess a second filing fee when an associated 
person files a straight-in request if the associated person, or the 
requesting party if it is an on-behalf-of request, has previously paid 
the filing fee to request expungement of the same customer dispute 
information during a customer arbitration.
9. Arbitrators ``Recommend'' Rather Than ``Grant'' Expungement
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA requested comment on whether to revise FINRA 
Rules 12805 and 13805 to state that the panel may ``recommend'' rather 
than ``grant'' expungement if the FINRA Rule 2080 standards are 
satisfied. Several commenters supported the revision as a clarifying 
change that would more accurately reflect the panel's role in the 
expungement process.\228\ For example, PIABA stated that after the 
panel recommends expungement, under FINRA Rule 2080 the member or 
associated person ``must obtain an order from a court of competent 
jurisdiction confirming the arbitration award containing expungement 
relief.'' AdvisorLaw and Tinklenberg opposed the proposed rule change, 
with AdvisorLaw stating that ``grant'' should be retained because 
``[i]t has long been established that the decisions made in arbitration 
are final and binding upon the parties,'' and that ``[c]hanging the 
language of the Rule from the word `grant' to `recommend' may lessen 
the perceived binding effect of the decision.'' \229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ See Black, Cornell, Georgia State, Gocek, Keesal and 
PIABA.
    \229\ See also Wellington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that ``recommend'' more accurately captures the 
panel's authority in the expungement process. Pursuant to FINRA Rule 
2080, FINRA will only expunge customer dispute information after a 
court of competent jurisdiction enters an order requiring it to do so. 
Accordingly, the proposed rule change would change the word ``grant'' 
to ``recommend'' in proposed Rules 12805 and 13805.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Unanimity of Decision
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that to recommend expungement, a 
three-person panel of arbitrators would be required to agree 
unanimously to recommend expungement. Some commenters opposed the 
unanimity requirement as making it too difficult to obtain expungement 
or because it was inconsistent with the ability of a customer to 
prevail by a majority decision.\231\ SIFMA, for example, stated that 
the unanimity requirement would ``impinge upon the fundamental fairness 
of the expungement process in providing an effective balance to the 
allegation-based complaint reporting regime and will have a significant 
impact on registered representatives' ability to protect their 
livelihoods and reputations.'' JonesBell and Behr stated that ``t[o] 
require a unanimous decision on any expungement request obviously would 
give a single individual sitting on a three-member panel the power to 
prevent, for improper reason or no good reason at all, a meritorious 
request that a false or erroneous claim be removed from a 
representative's CRD record.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ See AdvisorLaw, Behr, Gocek, Hagenstein, Higgenbotham, 
Janney, JonesBell, Keesal, Leven, Mahoney, Saretsky, SIFMA, Smart, 
Speicher, Tinklenberg and White.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters supported requiring a unanimous decision to 
recommend expungement.\232\ For example, PIABA stated that the 
unanimity requirement would help ensure that expungement was an 
extraordinary remedy that is only granted when it has no meaningful 
investor protection or regulatory value. The SEC Investor Advocate 
stated that the requirement would provide greater ``assurance that only 
meritless complaints are expunged,'' and expressed hope ``that this 
requirement will encourage brokers to only seek expungement when the 
underlying customer dispute information is meritless.'' Cornell stated 
that the ``unanimity requirement protects public investors by ensuring 
that the threshold for expungement is high,'' and that, ``given the 
history of abuse of the expungement process,'' would ``help[ ] to 
ensure that when expungement is granted, the expungement is 
legitimate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ See Black, Cornell, Georgia State, Liebrader, NASAA, 
PIABA, Public Citizen, The SEC Investor Advocate and UNLV. In 
addition, Wellington stated that if an expungement was endorsed 
unanimously, the term ``grant'' should be retained, there should be 
little or no cost to the requesting party, and the associated person 
should not have to obtain a court order directing the expungement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, FINRA has determined to allow 
arbitrators to recommend expungement through a majority decision, 
consistent with what is required for other decisions in customer and 
industry arbitrations.\233\ FINRA believes that requiring a majority of 
arbitrators to agree that expungement is appropriate should be 
sufficient to help preserve in the CRD system information that is 
valuable to investors and regulators, while allowing associated persons 
a reasonable mechanism to remove information that is inaccurate. FINRA 
notes, however, that if the SEC approves the proposed rule change, 
FINRA will continue to monitor the expungement process to determine if 
additional changes are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ See FINRA Rules 12904(a) and 13904(a).

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

[[Page 62170]]

11. No Investor Protection or Regulatory Value
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed to require that a panel find that 
customer dispute information has ``no investor protection or regulatory 
value'' to recommend expungement. Several commenters opposed the 
requirement.\234\ For example, Herskovits stated that the standard was 
vague and opened the possibility of inconsistent rulings among 
different panels. FSI stated that the proposal was ``confusing as it is 
difficult to imagine a scenario where information that is false, 
clearly erroneous, factually impossible or did not involve the advisor, 
would have regulatory or investor protection value.'' SIFMA stated that 
the requirement was redundant in light of the current high standards in 
FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1), may have the effect of discouraging meritorious 
expungement claims, was already incorporated into the Guidance and 
would transform the traditional role of arbitrators as fact-finders and 
require them to make a policy determination in each case. Keesal stated 
that the change would unnecessarily complicate the expungement process 
to the detriment of associated persons with no corresponding investor 
protection value. Saretsky proposed that arbitrators instead be 
required to find that the customer dispute had no ``reasonable'' 
investor protection or regulatory value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See Baritz, FSI, Gocek, Herskovits, Janney, Keesal, 
Saretsky, SIFMA and White.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASAA expressed a concern with the proposal because it would allow 
arbitrators, rather than regulators, to make the finding. The SEC 
Investor Advocate expressed the same concern, and suggested that FINRA 
provide a framework on how the standard should be interpreted and 
applied to avoid disparate interpretations and outcomes. Schlein stated 
that arbitrators ``should receive supplemental training on the proposed 
new standard,'' and that FINRA should also ``offer training or 
instructional materials to judges'' who will be required to confirm an 
expungement award.
    Other commenters supported the requirement.\235\ For example, PIABA 
suggested that arbitrators should be required to make the finding 
because in practice arbitration panels ``often believe that the Rule 
2080 standards are easily met'' and ``do not grasp the fact that'' a 
claim may not be factually impossible or false even though a customer 
has not met his or her burden of proof for purposes of establishing 
liability or rebutting an affirmative defense. St. John's stated that 
the proposed requirement would ``help strengthen investor protection by 
improving confidence in the accuracy of the CRD system and 
BrokerCheck.'' Cornell stated that the requirement would allow the 
panel to look beyond the claim and at the associated person's record as 
a whole, including other customer dispute information, which would 
protect public investors. Liebrader stated that ``[t]oo many legitimate 
claims disappear from public view in the largely uncontested 
expungement process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ See Cornell, Liebrader, PIABA, St. John's and UNLV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, FINRA has determined not to propose 
that the panel must find ``no investor protection or regulatory value'' 
to recommend expungement. FINRA agrees with some commenters that the 
standard may, if codified into rule language, create confusion among 
arbitrators and the potential for inconsistent application among 
different arbitrators and panels.\236\ FINRA also believes that the 
overall proposal, coupled with the existing standards in FINRA Rule 
2080, would be sufficient to help preserve in the CRD system 
information that is valuable to investors and regulators, while 
allowing associated persons to remove information that is inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ FINRA notes that in its Order approving NASD Rule 2130 
(now FINRA Rule 2080), which describes the current findings that 
arbitrators must make to recommend expungement, the SEC stated that 
``it believes the proposal strikes the appropriate balance between 
permitting members and associated persons to remove information from 
the CRD system that holds no regulatory value, while at the same 
time preserving information on the CRD system that is valuable to 
investors and regulators.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 
48933 (December 16, 2003) 68 FR 74667, 74672 (December 24, 2003) 
(Order Approving File No. SR-NASD-2002-168).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Panel Must Identify One of the FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1) Grounds for 
Expungement
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA clarified in proposed Rules 12805 and 13805 
that the FINRA Rule 2080 grounds for expungement that the panel must 
identify to recommend expungement are the grounds stated in paragraph 
(b)(1) of FINRA Rule 2080. In response to Notice 17-42, PIABA supported 
clarifying ``that an arbitration panel may not recommend expungement on 
grounds other than those set forth in Rule 2080.'' Keesal, however, 
viewed FINRA's proposal as ``remov[ing] the arbitrator's ability to 
grant expungement relief based on judicial or arbitral findings other 
than those listed in Rule 2080(b)(1).'' \237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ See also Baritz; compare SIFMA (stating that ``FINRA 
already imposes high standards in order for arbitrators to recommend 
expungement,'' and that ``FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1) requires a finding 
either that: (i) the claim or allegation is factually impossible or 
clearly erroneous; (ii) the registered person was not involved in 
the alleged sales practice violation, forgery, theft, 
misappropriation or conversion of funds, or (iii) the claim, 
allegation, or information is false'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA notes that under current FINRA Rule 12805, arbitrators are 
required to base their expungement recommendations on one of the three 
grounds listed in FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1).\238\ Accordingly, the proposed 
rule change clarifies in proposed Rules 12805 and 13805 that the 
grounds for expungement that the panel must indicate in its award are 
the grounds in FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1).\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ See Regulatory Notice 08-79 (December 2008) (stating that 
``[t]he arbitration panel must indicate which of the grounds for 
expungement under Rule 2130(b)(1)(A)-(C) serve as the basis for 
their expungement order, and provide a brief written explanation of 
the reasons for ordering expungement'').
    \239\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(8) and 13805(c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Time Limits for Straight-In Requests
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that for customer arbitrations, 
associated persons must file straight-in requests within one-year from 
the date the customer arbitration closed. For customer complaints, 
FINRA proposed that associated persons must file straight-in requests 
within one-year from the date that a member firm initially reported the 
complaint to the CRD system. For customer arbitrations that close and 
customer complaints that are reported prior to the effective date of 
the proposed rule change, the associated person would have six months 
from the effective date of the rule, if approved by the Commission, to 
file the expungement request.
    Some commenters opposed the proposed time limitations as 
unwarranted or too short.\240\ For example, SIFMA stated that the one-
year time limitation is unnecessary because the general six-year period 
to file all claims also applies to expungement requests. SIFMA also 
stated that the one-year time limitation is insufficient for firms to 
properly investigate and respond to customer complaints, and would 
create inefficiency by requiring the filing of requests to expunge 
customer complaints that would then be stayed if they evolved into an 
arbitration. SIFMA also requested ``further guidance on the extended 
time period that will be afforded registered representatives who have 
eligible claims for expungement

[[Page 62171]]

that would become ineligible if the rule proposals were implemented.'' 
\241\ JonesBell and Behr stated that an associated person may be 
unaware that a member firm ``has reported a customer complaint on his 
or her CRD.'' \242\ FSI stated that associated persons should have 
three years to file expungement requests to provide them with time to 
assess how the information will impact their business, which may not be 
immediately apparent. Keesal stated that because customers may wait up 
to six years to file an arbitration claim under FINRA Rule 12206 after 
making a customer complaint, the proposed time limits would be unfair 
and would increase the frequency of requests, as the associated person 
would have to make a second expungement request if the customer 
complaint was later the subject of an arbitration claim. Saretksy 
stated that the time restriction was unnecessary because arbitrators 
are ``free to weigh the evidentiary value (if any) of an associated 
person's undue delay.'' Herskovits stated that FINRA's concern about 
document retention was ``misplaced'' because SEC and FINRA rules 
``generally mandate the preservation of most records for 3 to 6 years 
(and many firms preserve documents for longer periods of time).'' 
Grebenik expressed concerns with the proposed time limits because there 
were ``thousands of advisors who have customer disputes and do not know 
about the expungement process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ See AdvisorLaw, Barber, Baritz, Behr, Brookes, FSI, Glenn, 
Grebenik, Herskovits, Higgenbotham, JonesBell, Keesal, Leven, 
Saretsky, SIFMA, Smart, Speicher, Stephens and Walter.
    \241\ See also AdvisorLaw (stating that providing six months 
where the customer arbitration closes on or prior to the effective 
date of the proposed rule change was arbitrary and creates an 
unjustifiable distinction between cases that close prior to the 
rules and those that close after).
    \242\ See supra note 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters supported the time limits.\243\ For example, UNLV 
stated that the proposed time limit would ensure ``that relevant 
evidence is available and increases investors' ability to 
participate.'' In response to other commenters' suggestion that brokers 
may not be aware of a customer complaint, Cornell stated that ``public 
investors should not be penalized for the failure of firms to implement 
streamlined notification and recordkeeping procedures,'' and that ``it 
is not too much to ask that the associated person follow up as to 
disposition by the firm.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ See Cornell, Georgia State, PIABA, Public Citizen and 
Schlein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PIABA ``strongly support[ed] a definite cut-off date for requests 
for expungement,'' and stated that a customer is ``far more likely to 
participate in an expungement hearing when it takes place in close 
proximity to the resolution of the underlying arbitration proceeding.'' 
PIABA also stated that a more stringent time limit would lead to higher 
quality evidence, which becomes less reliable and available with the 
passage of time. PIABA stated that when the arbitration results in an 
award, a shorter timeframe of 90 days is preferable because significant 
time will already have passed from the filing of the customer's 
arbitration claim, and because 90 days matches the deadline to file a 
motion to vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration 
Act. PIABA also stated that, because member firms and associated 
persons control the date that information is reported in the CRD 
system, the time limit for customer complaints should run from the 
shorter of the date the firm initially reported the complaint in the 
CRD system or a month after the associated person receives notice of 
the complaint.
    After considering the comments, FINRA believes that adjustments to 
the originally proposed time limitations are warranted to provide 
sufficient time for associated persons to determine whether to seek 
expungement of customer dispute information. Accordingly, FINRA has 
revised the proposal to provide for a two-year period to file an 
expungement request when a customer arbitration or civil litigation 
that gives rise to customer dispute information closes.\244\ The two-
year period would help ensure that the expungement hearing is held 
close in time to the customer arbitration or civil litigation, when 
information regarding the customer arbitration is available and in a 
timeframe that would increase the likelihood for the customer to 
participate if he or she chooses to do so. At the same time, it would 
allow the associated person time to determine whether to seek 
expungement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(A)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For customer complaints where no customer arbitration or civil 
litigation gave rise to the customer dispute information, the proposed 
rule change would provide for six years from the date that the customer 
complaint was initially reported to the CRD system for the associated 
person to file the expungement request.\245\ Six years would allow 
firms time to complete investigations of customer complaints and close 
them in the CRD system and for the complaints to evolve, or not evolve, 
into an arbitration. Thus, the revised proposal would help avoid 
unnecessary duplicative requests to expunge customer complaints that 
subsequently evolve into arbitrations or civil litigations, while 
providing reasonable time limits to encourage customer participation 
and help ensure the availability of evidence. The proposed six-year 
time limitation is also consistent with FINRA's general eligibility 
rule, which provides that no claim shall be eligible for submission to 
arbitration under the Code where six years have elapsed from the 
occurrence or event giving rise to the claim.\246\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(A)(v).
    \246\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change makes similar revisions to the time limits 
described in Notice 17-42 to seek to expunge customer dispute 
information that arose prior to the effective date of the proposed rule 
change. For customer dispute information arising from customer 
arbitrations or civil litigations that closed on or prior to the 
effective date of the proposed rule change, the expungement request 
would be required to be made within two years of the effective date of 
the proposed rule change.\247\ For customer complaints initially 
reported to the CRD system on or prior to the effective date of the 
proposed rule change, where no customer arbitration or civil litigation 
gave rise to the customer dispute information, the expungement request 
would be required to be made within six years of the effective date of 
the proposed rule change.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(B)(i).
    \248\ See proposed Rule 13805(a)(2)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Effect of Withdrawal of Expungement Request
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that if the associated person 
withdraws an expungement request after the panel is appointed in a 
straight-in request, the case would be closed with prejudice, unless 
the panel decides otherwise. AdvisorLaw supported the proposal, stating 
that it would ``create safeguards, and prevent an associated person 
from simply withdrawing their case and refiling in hopes of drawing a 
more favorable pool of randomly selected arbitrators.''
    Under the proposed rule change, for expungement requests during 
customer arbitrations and straight-in requests, if the associated 
person withdraws or does not pursue the expungement request (or the 
party, with the written consent of the unnamed person, withdraws or 
does not pursue the request), the panel would be required to deny the 
expungement request with prejudice.\249\ These requirements would 
foreclose the ability of associated persons withdrawing expungement 
requests to avoid having

[[Page 62172]]

their requests decided by the panel, and then seeking to re-file the 
request and receive a new list of arbitrators and a potentially more 
favorable panel and decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(1)(D)(i), 12805(a)(2)(E)(i) 
and 13805(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Associated Person's Appearance Required at the Expungement Hearing
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that an associated person seeking 
to have his or her CRD record expunged would be required to appear at 
the expungement hearing either in person or by video conference. Five 
commenters supported the proposal, stating generally that this would 
allow the arbitrators to better assess the associated person's demeanor 
and credibility.\250\ UNLV also stated that requiring videoconferencing 
would carry minimal costs given its widespread availability at FINRA's 
regional offices and other venues. NASAA stated that the broker should 
be required to appear in-person, ``given the extraordinary relief the 
broker is seeking.'' Georgia State also supported requiring an 
associated person to appear in person at the hearing, and stated that 
appearance by video conference should only ``be permitted, if at all, 
in those simplified cases where a hearing did not take place.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ See Black, Caruso, Cornell, PIABA and UNLV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Six commenters preferred to allow the associated person to appear 
by telephone.\251\ SIFMA, for example, stated that there appeared to be 
no basis for allowing customers, but not associated persons, to appear 
by telephone, and that the proposal would ``greatly increase the cost 
of expungement through attendant travel costs and loss of 
productivity.'' Three commenters stated that the arbitrators should 
decide the method of appearance.\252\ White, for example, stated that 
telephonic testimony ``might be acceptable in limited circumstances,'' 
and suggested that ``arbitrators can make this determination and the 
Rule should not limit their flexibility to do so.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ See Baritz, Gocek, Grebenik, Keesal, SIFMA and 
Tinklenberg.
    \252\ See AdvisorLaw, Robbins and White.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the proposed rule change would 
allow the panel to determine the method of appearance by the associated 
person--by telephone, in person or by video conference.\253\ As the 
associated person is requesting the permanent removal of information 
from his or her CRD record, FINRA believes the associated person should 
personally participate in the expungement hearing to respond to 
questions from the panel and those customers who choose to participate. 
Rather than restrict the method of appearance, the panel would have the 
authority to decide which method of appearance would be the most 
appropriate for the particular case.\254\ FINRA believes that providing 
flexibility as to the method of appearance would encourage appropriate 
fact-finding by the arbitrators and generally strengthen the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(2) and 13805(c)(2).
    \254\ See supra note 253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Customer Notification
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that when an expungement request is 
filed separately from the customer arbitration, FINRA would notify the 
parties from the customer arbitration or the customer who initiated the 
complaint that is the subject of the request about the expungement 
request. PIABA supported the proposed customer notification 
requirement. Georgia State recommended ``additional notifications to 
the investor about the expungement hearing.''
    The proposed rule change modifies the proposal in Notice 17-42 to 
add an additional notification to help ensure that customers receive 
timely notice of both the expungement request and the expungement 
hearing. The associated person would be required to serve all customers 
whose customer arbitrations, civil litigations and customer complaints 
gave rise to customer dispute information that is a subject of the 
expungement request with notice of the request by serving on the 
customers a copy of the statement of claim requesting expungement 
before the first scheduled hearing session is held.\255\ The Director 
would then notify the customers of the time, date and place of the 
expungement hearing using the customers' current address provided by 
the party seeking expungement.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ See proposed Rule 13805(b)(1)(A); see also supra note 134.
    \256\ See proposed Rule 13805(b)(2); see also supra note 137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Customer Participation During the Expungement Hearing
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed that, consistent with the Guidance, 
all customers in the customer arbitration or who filed a customer 
complaint would be entitled to appear at the expungement hearing. At 
the customer's option, the customer could appear by telephone.
    In response to Notice 17-42, PIABA and The SEC Investor Advocate 
stated that FINRA should codify all of the customer rights provided in 
the Guidance, including, for example, allowing the customer or their 
counsel to introduce documents and other evidence and to cross-examine 
the broker or other witnesses called by the broker seeking 
expungement.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ See also St. John's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA agrees that the customer rights contained in the Guidance 
should be codified, as reflected in the proposed rule change.\258\ In 
addition to incorporating the customer rights contained in the 
Guidance, the proposed rule change also clarifies that the customer may 
be represented and states that the customer may appear at the 
expungement hearing by telephone, in person, or by video conference. In 
addition, if a customer testifies, the associated person or other 
person requesting expungement would be allowed to cross-examine the 
customer. If the customer introduces any evidence at the expungement 
hearing, the associated person or party requesting expungement could 
object to the introduction of the evidence, and the panel would decide 
any objections. The proposed rule change would allow and encourage 
customers to participate fully in the expungement hearing, while 
providing the associated person with a reasonable opportunity to rebut 
evidence introduced by the customer.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ See proposed Rules 12805(c) and 13805(c).
    \259\ In response to the Notice 17-42, White stated that if the 
customer chooses to object to the expungement request, ``it would be 
helpful if it was mandated that the customer participate in the 
hearing or file a substantive statement or brief opposing 
expungement.'' Schlein stated that FINRA should consider requiring 
the associated person to ``bear the cost of the customer's 
attendance if the customer wishes to participate in person.'' FINRA 
believes that these requirements would be unduly burdensome and, 
therefore, has determined not to propose them as requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. State Notification
    In response to Notice 17-42, NASAA requested ``earlier notices to 
state regulators of an expungement request to better facilitate 
regulator involvement where appropriate.'' \260\ The proposed rule 
change provides that FINRA would notify state securities regulators, in 
the manner determined by FINRA, of the associated person's expungement 
request within 30 days after receiving a complete request for 
expungement, so that the states are timely notified of the 
request.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ See also The SEC Investor Advocate.
    \261\ See proposed Rules 12805(b) and 13805(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Unnamed Persons
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed to codify the ability of a party in 
a customer arbitration to request expungement on behalf of an unnamed 
person. AdvisorLaw stated that it opposed the practice and suggested 
that FINRA prohibit it entirely as there

[[Page 62173]]

would be an ``inherent conflict'' of interest for the firm's counsel 
because the interest of the member (who is the counsel's client) and 
the associated person rarely align. AdvisorLaw also suggested that the 
associated person's consent may be compromised ``in the likely scenario 
where the member firm is providing financial assistance for the legal 
representation, as the associated person may agree under financial 
duress.'' NASAA supported codifying the practice, but noted that it 
would ``require cooperation between firms and their associated 
persons'' and that FINRA would have to develop ``robust, mandated 
notification procedures.'' \262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ See NASAA (noting support for this change along with the 
proposal in the Notice 17-42 that would prevent an unnamed 
associated from filing an arbitration claim seeking expungement 
against an investor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA notes that under the proposed rule change, filing an on-
behalf-of request would be permissive, not mandatory. In addition, 
FINRA would require the party and the unnamed person to sign a form 
consenting to the on-behalf-of request to help ensure that the unnamed 
person is fully aware of the request and that the firm is agreeing to 
represent the unnamed person for the purpose of requesting expungement 
during the customer arbitration, regardless of how the arbitration 
closes.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ See proposed Rules 12805(a)(2)(C)(ii) and 12805(a)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. No Interventions by Associated Persons To Request Expungement
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed to foreclose the option of an 
unnamed person to intervene in a customer arbitration to request 
expungement. Keesal opposed this proposal, stating that intervention 
``often can be economical, given that the evidence on the merits (or 
lack thereof) of the customer's complaint will be presented at the 
evidentiary hearing and that same evidence will provide the basis for 
expungement relief.'' \264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ See also Behr and JonesBell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that where no party to the arbitration has filed a 
claim against the associated person or requested expungement on his or 
her behalf, the associated person's conduct is less likely to be 
addressed fully by the parties during the customer arbitration. In 
those circumstances, FINRA believes that the associated person should 
not be able to intervene in the customer arbitration, and that any 
expungement request should be decided separately by the Special 
Arbitrator Roster.\265\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ See proposed Rule 12805(a)(1)(E)(iii); see also supra Item 
II.A.1.(II)A.3, ``No Intervening in Customer Arbitrations to Request 
Expungement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Application of Expungement Framework to Customer Complaints
    In Notice 17-42, FINRA proposed to allow an associated person to 
file an arbitration against a member firm for the sole purpose of 
seeking expungement of a customer complaint and have the request 
decided by the Special Arbitrator Roster. In response to Notice 17-42, 
NASAA stated that it objected to ``expanding the scope of Rule 2080 to 
apply to all information related to [non-arbitrated] customer 
complaints.'' NASAA stated that today, the expungement process is used 
to expunge customer complaints that are not the subject of arbitration, 
but believed that this practice was ``beyond the scope originally 
intended with the rules'' and that codification would ``further embed a 
flawed process that does not afford regulators the ability to preserve 
information already considered to have regulatory value and provide 
investor protection.'' The SEC Investor Advocate also indicated that it 
did not believe that ``now is the time to expand the Rule 2080 
expungement process to claims that do not result in arbitration,'' and 
that it would ``prefer to see the results of the new process before 
introducing an entirely new class of complaints to the mix.''
    FINRA notes that customer complaints have always been within the 
contemplated scope of FINRA Rule 2080. In proposing and adopting 
predecessor NASD Rule 2130, and in proposing to adopt FINRA Rule 2080 
without material change, FINRA defined ``customer dispute information'' 
as 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.'' \266\ The 
proposed amendments would continue to allow associated persons to file 
a claim in arbitration against a member firm for the sole purpose of 
seeking expungement of a customer complaint that is reported in the CRD 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ See Notice to Members 04-16 (March 2004); Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 47435 (March 4, 2003), 68 FR 11435 (March 
10, 2003) (Notice of Filing and Amendment No. 1 of File No. SR-NASD-
2002-168); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59771 (April 15, 
2009), 74 FR 18411 (April 22, 2009) (Notice of Filing and Amendment 
No. 1 of File No. SR-FINRA-2009-016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Other General Comments in Response to Notice 17-42
A. Personal Experiences With the Expungement Process
    Some commenters opposed the proposal as set forth in Notice 17-42 
because of their experiences with what they considered to be meritless 
customer arbitration claims.\267\ In addition, a number of commenters 
described their personal experiences with the customer complaint and 
expungement process or generally criticized the current process and the 
proposed rule change as unfair.\268\ FINRA acknowledges and appreciates 
the commenters' concerns and has considered them in connection with the 
proposed rule change as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ See Anzaldua, Barber, Braschi, Brookes, Burrill, Christ, 
Decker, Di Silvio, Gamblin, Glenn, Harmon, Harris, Higgenbotham, 
Isola, Joyce, Leven, Lindsey, Ram, Rosser, Scrydloff, Skafco, 
Slaughter, Stephens, Stewart, Tinklenberg, Walter, Weinerf and 
Zanolli.
    \268\ See e.g., Higgenbotham (describing CRD disclosures 
``related to funds offered by my employer [that] crashed during the 
2007-2008 Financial Crisis''); see also AdvisorLaw (providing a 
hyperlink to an online petition that requested signatures to 
``support a balanced, cost and time effective, expungement 
process,'' and collecting associated comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. General Perspectives on the Proposed Rule Change
    Some commenters also offered more general perspectives on the rule 
proposal as set forth in Notice 17-42. The SEC Investor Advocate, while 
generally supporting the proposed rule change, expressed a concern that 
the proposed amendments may cause brokers to seek to avoid the FINRA 
Rule 2080 process entirely, and instead request expungement directly in 
a court of competent jurisdiction. FINRA notes that today, a broker can 
seek expungement by going through the FINRA arbitration process or by 
going directly to court.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ See FINRA Rule 2080; see also supra note 12 (describing 
the requirement to name FINRA as a party when brokers seek 
expungement in court).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA stated that FINRA already has in place a robust set of rules 
and expanded guidance to safeguard the expungement process, and that 
there did not appear to be any empirical justification for the 
additional regulations contained in the proposal, such as that 
expungements are too numerous or are being improperly granted.
    PIABA stated that FINRA should only promulgate rules that 
facilitate removal of customer dispute information from the CRD system 
in the most extraordinary of circumstances. NASAA supported the 
proposal as an ``important first step'' that ``add[ed] beneficial 
requirements and limitations related to the procedure of expungement.''
    FINRA appreciates the commenters' differing perspectives. FINRA's 
review suggests that the percentage of expungement requests that are

[[Page 62174]]

recommended is higher when the arbitrator or panel receives information 
only from the associated person or other party requesting 
expungement.\270\ FINRA believes that the expungement process that 
would be established by the proposed rule change would help ensure that 
expungement is recommended in limited circumstances, while providing 
associated persons with a reasonable framework to seek expungement of 
information on their CRD records by establishing one or more of the 
grounds set forth in FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ See supra Item II.B.2., ``Economic Baseline.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Alternatives to the CRD Disclosure and Expungement Framework
    Several commenters suggested alternatives to the current CRD 
disclosure and expungement framework.\271\ For example, Mahoney stated 
that where an arbitration panel renders an award denying a customer's 
claims against an associated person, ``the associated person should 
automatically have their CRD record expunged of all references to the 
complaint.'' Mahoney also stated that FINRA should not subject 
associated persons who are not named in a customer complaint, but were 
determined by member firms to have been involved in the sales practice 
violation(s), to disclosure and expungement standards that ``create an 
unprecedented rebuttable presumption of liability.'' \272\ In contrast, 
St. John's suggested that associated persons be prohibited from seeking 
expungement if there has been a finding of liability in the 
arbitration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ See Barber, Baumgardner, Burrill, Butt, Chepucavage, 
Commonwealth, Harmon, Harris, Mahoney, Penzell, PIABA, Stewart, 
Tinklenberg and Wellington.
    \272\ See also FSI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PIABA stated that although it supported the proposed rule change, 
expungement requests would be best handled separate from the 
arbitration and determined by FINRA itself rather than arbitrators. 
NASAA proposed further reform to the expungement process built around 
several principles including, for example, increased regulatory 
participation that allows for a regulatory determination regarding the 
merits of the expungement request.
    FINRA appreciates the commenters' suggestions. As indicated by the 
proposed rule change, FINRA believes that revising the current 
expungement process as set forth in the proposed rule change, 
particularly the establishment of a panel of arbitrators randomly 
selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster to consider and decide 
straight-in requests, would best help achieve the goal that expungement 
should be recommended in limited circumstances. However, FINRA welcomes 
continued engagement to discuss further ways to enhance the expungement 
process.
D. Other Comments
    In response to Notice 17-42, Public Citizen stated that the 
explanation of expungement decisions that arbitrators write should be 
made public to ensure transparency. FINRA notes that arbitrators are 
required to provide a brief written explanation of the reasons for 
recommending expungement in the arbitration award.\273\ The proposed 
rule change would retain this requirement, but would remove the word 
``brief'' to indicate to the arbitrators that they must provide enough 
detail in the award to explain their rationale for recommending 
expungement.\274\ As the Guidance suggests, the explanation must be 
complete and not solely a recitation of one of the FINRA Rule 2080 
grounds or language provided in the expungement request.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ See FINRA Rule 12805.
    \274\ See proposed Rules 12805(c)(8) and 13805(c)(8).
    \275\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, FINRA makes arbitration awards publicly available in 
the FINRA Arbitration Awards Online database (which provides 
arbitration awards rendered in FINRA's arbitration forum as well as 
other forums).\276\ To provide information to the public, BrokerCheck 
links directly to the FINRA Arbitration Awards Online database. When a 
broker's BrokerCheck record includes a reportable arbitration award, 
the BrokerCheck record provides a hyperlink directly to the relevant 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ Arbitration Awards Online is available at http://www.finra.org/arbitration-and-mediation/arbitration-awards. This 
database enables users to perform Web-based searches for FINRA and 
historical NASD arbitration awards. Also available through the 
database are historical awards for the New York Stock Exchange, the 
American Stock Exchange, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, the 
Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Pacific Exchange/ARCA and the 
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PIABA stated that removal of customer dispute information from the 
CRD system diminishes the ability of reputation to police business 
misconduct because of ``FINRA's embrace of widespread pre-dispute 
arbitration agreements,'' and because records from FINRA proceedings 
are not available to the public on the same terms as public court 
proceedings. As discussed above, the proposed rule change is intended 
to help preserve in CRD information that is valuable to investors and 
regulators, while allowing associated persons a reasonable mechanism to 
remove information that is inaccurate.
    Keesal suggested that orders from other respected arbitration 
forums, such as the American Arbitration Association (``AAA''), should 
be afforded the same weight as arbitral findings from arbitrators in 
FINRA-administered arbitration, provided that (1) the arbitrators make 
written, factual findings as the basis for expungement under FINRA Rule 
2080 and (2) the requirements of FINRA Rule 12805 are satisfied. FINRA 
appreciates the commenter's suggestion and would consider how to treat 
arbitration awards recommending expungement in accordance with the 
proposed rule change from other recognized arbitration forums, such as 
AAA or JAMS, if the proposed rule change is approved by the Commission.
    In addition, Keesal requested that FINRA provide guidance to 
associated persons and registration personnel regarding the meaning and 
effect of an expunged claim in the context of licensing and 
registration questionnaires. Although the impact on licensing and 
registration questionnaires is outside the scope of the proposed rule 
change, FINRA will consider whether additional guidance is appropriate.

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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

[[Page 62175]]

     Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include 
File Number SR-FINRA-2020-030 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-2020-030. 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 (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 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. All comments received will be 
posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that 
we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment 
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make 
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
FINRA-2020-030 and should be submitted on or before October 22, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21660 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


