On June 16, 2020, the DC Circuit issued its opinion in the consolidated matter, New York Stock Exchange, LLC v. SEC., noting that “[t]he [SEC’s] Pilot Program emanates from an aimless ‘one-off’ regulation, i.e., a rule that imposes significant, costly, and disparate regulatory requirements on affected parties merely to allow the Commission [purportedly] to collect data to determine whether there might be a problem worthy of regulation.” The DC Circuit struck down Rule 610T, holding that SEC lacked Congressionally-delegated authority under section 23(a)(1) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78w(a)(1)).SEC’s Efforts to Reduce NSEs’ Depth-of-Market Product FeesSecurities Market DataWe may take for granted the consolidated tape that runs at the bottom of the screen on financial programs, unaware that it is a finished product constructed from the raw material of customer orders and trades—stock market-data—submitted to each NSE.

Now that the shaming mechanism has been struck down on First Amendment grounds, the remainder of the rule has questionable benefits. The Commission must therefore re-assess whether the rule complies with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 78w(a)(2), which bars “any rule,..

The US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit granted Petitioners’ Motion to Expedite and the briefing schedule as agreed by the parties.The Clerk ordered the following briefing schedule:Petitioners’ Opening BriefJanuary 16, 2013Respondent’s BriefMarch 1, 2013Briefs of Any Intervenors or Amici In Support of RespondentsMarch 8, 2013Petitioners’ Reply BriefMarch 22, 2013Deferred AppendixMarch 26, 2013Final BriefsMarch 28, 2013 11/21/2012 Statement of Issues Filed by Business Roundtable, United States Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers.The Petitioners contend that the following issues are grounds for a Petition for Review:Whether the [SEC’s] economic analysis of Rule 13p-1 and Form SD is inadequate, in violation of 15 USC 78c(f), 15 USC 78w(a)(2) and 5 USC 603.Whether the [SEC’s] refusal to adopt a de minimis exception to Rule 13p-1 is erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.Whether the [SEC’s] interpretation of 15 USC 78m(p)(2)(B) as including non-manufacturers who “contract to manufacture” products is erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.