The general clearly erroneous provision defines the error it addresses by reference to three illustrative terms. Which?

The price, the settlement date, and the identity of the counterparty to the transaction

The price, the number of shares or other unit of trading, and identification of the security

The price, the commission charged, and the capacity in which the member acted

The price, the time at which it was executed, and the venue on which the trade was afterwards reported

The provision reaches not merely an error but an obvious one. What does that qualifier require?

That the error be one the entering member noticed before the trade was reported

That the error have affected more than one counterparty to the transaction

That it be evident from the transaction's own terms against objective reference points

That the error be of a kind the rule's illustrative categories expressly name

A member refuses to take the action necessary to effectuate a final decision made under the clearly erroneous series. How does the rule characterise that refusal?

As a matter for the clearing agency through which the transaction settled

As grounds for the decision to be reconsidered by the Committee on its own motion

As a breach of contract between the member and its counterparty to the transaction

What does FINRA take into account in determining whether a transaction is clearly erroneous?

The deviation from the prevailing price, expressed as a percentage against a fixed table

The circumstances at the time, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and investor and public protection

The time elapsed since the execution, whether the trade has already settled, and whether both parties consent to relief

The size of the loss, the sophistication of the parties, and the security's average volume

An order reaches FINRA's systems carrying the wrong price and the wrong order type. Where does the rule place responsibility for that?

On FINRA, whose systems accepted the order in the form it was submitted in

On the counterparty, if it executed against terms it ought to have questioned first

On the participant, which must ensure the appropriate price and order type are entered

On whichever of the two parties first identifies the discrepancy after execution

What kind of situation is the clearly erroneous series generally focused on?

Individual disputes between two members about the terms of one single execution

Executions occurring in the minutes immediately before or after a trading halt

Transactions in securities for which no prevailing market price can be determined at all

Systemic problems involving large numbers of parties or trades, or comparable market conditions

Someone gains access to a legitimate account illegally and trades in it to move a security's price, producing executions at anomalous prices. Does the clearly erroneous series reach that conduct?

No, it relates to allegations of fraud and falls outside the series

Yes, but only where the account holder rather than FINRA raises the matter

No, unless the transactions also disrupted the market for the security generally

Yes, the anomalous prices bring it within the obvious error standard

FINRA Rule 11891 took effect in January 2003. What does its history record as happening less than four months afterwards?

A consolidation with the neighbouring provision, the two having overlapped in scope

A renumbering, so the provision had occupied a different rule number before then

A withdrawal, the provision being reinstated later under the same number it has now

A substantive amendment widening the categories of error the provision reaches

FINRA Rule 11891 defines when the terms of a transaction are "clearly erroneous". For what purposes does FINRA Rule 11891's definition apply?

For the Uniform Practice Code as a whole, wherever any of its rules refers to an erroneous trade

For FINRA Rule 11891 alone, each later rule in the series setting out a definition of its own

For the Rule 11890 Series as a whole, the rules that follow it in the series included

For FINRA's trade reporting rules, which use it to decide when a reported trade must be cancelled

The clearly erroneous series has a provision on refusing to abide by rulings. Whose final decisions does that provision name?

Those of a FINRA officer, or of a national securities exchange that broke a related trade

Those of the Uniform Practice Code Committee, or of FINRA's Board of Governors

Those of FINRA's Board of Governors, or of a national securities exchange

Those of a FINRA officer, or of the Uniform Practice Code Committee

A transaction executes for 100,000 shares, a hundred times the size of the order it was meant to fill, at a price nobody disputes. Can its terms be clearly erroneous when the price itself was right?

Yes — an obvious error in the number of shares is enough on its own, without any error in price

No — a trade executed at a correct price cannot be clearly erroneous, whatever its size turns out to be

Yes, but only once the counterparty confirms in writing that it never intended to trade the larger quantity

No — an excess quantity is corrected by buying in or selling out the surplus shares, not through this series

Many executions land at prices a participant would rather not have had. In the price category of the definition, what separates a clearly erroneous price from those?

A price outside the limit the member set on its order, however close it lay to the market

A price wildly divergent from the prevailing market, such as one an order of magnitude away

A price beyond the security's usual daily trading range, measured from its previous close

A price producing a loss greater than the member's own risk limits allow on the position concerned

Some provisions say only that failing to meet a requirement may result in a violation of the just-and-equitable standard. How does the clearly erroneous series treat a member's refusal to carry out a final decision, by comparison?

It goes no further, a violation following only if FINRA later finds the refusal was unreasonable

It stops short, leaving the counterparty to enforce the decision through arbitration instead

It creates a distinct offence under the series, unconnected with the just-and-equitable standard

A final decision under the clearly erroneous series needs both members to a trade to take steps to carry it out. One of them, which neither made the error nor asked for the review, declines to act. Does the provision on refusing to abide by rulings reach it?

No — it is directed at the member whose error produced the transaction in the first place

No — the provision is aimed at the member that asked for the review and obtained the decision

Yes, but only if that member was told of the review before the decision was made

Yes — it reaches any member that refuses action needed to carry out the decision

A member neither appeals nor expressly refuses a final decision on its trade; it simply never takes the steps the decision requires. Does its silence keep it outside the provision on refusing to abide by rulings?

No — simply ignoring a final ruling exposes it just as an express refusal would

Yes — the provision requires a refusal communicated to FINRA before it can apply

Yes — silence counts as acceptance, and FINRA then carries out the decision for it

No, because failing to appeal is itself a breach of the clearly erroneous series

A member asks for a trade to be treated as clearly erroneous, explaining only that its trader failed to update a quote before it was hit. Is that explanation enough to establish that the trade was clearly erroneous?

Yes — the member's account of its own conduct is the best evidence of what it intended

Not necessarily — a member's simple assertion of its own mistake may not be sufficient

Yes, provided the explanation is given before the trade reaches its settlement date

No — only FINRA itself may identify a stale quote as the cause of an erroneous trade

Two trades in different securities deviate from their prevailing markets by the same percentage. One printed during a market-wide disruption, the other on an orderly day. May FINRA reach different determinations on them?

No — the same deviation from the market must produce the same determination every time

Yes, but only if the disrupted trade is reviewed by the Committee rather than an officer

Yes — FINRA takes into account the circumstances at the time of each transaction

No — the securities' prices, not the conditions around the trades, decide the question

A trade printed at an unusual price during a disruption, and both parties to it would like it to stand. Is their agreement decisive of whether FINRA treats it as clearly erroneous?

Yes, unless the price lies outside a published percentage threshold for the security

Yes — the series exists to settle disputes, and there is no dispute when both agree

No — the member that entered the order decides, the choice whether to seek relief being its own

No — FINRA also weighs a fair and orderly market and the protection of investors

An extraordinary event is still unfolding and has already caused major disruption to the marketplace. Does the clearly erroneous series' focus reach it while it continues?

Yes — its focus extends to an extraordinary event that has occurred or is ongoing

No — the event must have ended, so that its full effect on prices can be measured

Yes, but only once FINRA has declared a trading halt in the securities affected

No — a disruption across the marketplace is for the exchanges, not the series, to address

An extraordinary event has materially affected the market for one security traded over the counter, while the wider marketplace carries on undisturbed. Is that within the series' focus on extraordinary events?

No — an extraordinary event counts only when it disrupts the marketplace as a whole

Yes — a material effect on the market for that one security is enough in itself

No — an event of that kind is for the issuer's own disclosure, not for trade review

Yes, but only where that security is also listed on a national securities exchange

The clearly erroneous series is described as generally focused on a particular kind of situation. Does that stop the definition from reaching a single erroneous trade between two parties that affects no one else?

Yes — the definition requires an error affecting large numbers of parties or trades

Yes, unless the single trade was in a security traded over the counter

No — the obvious error standard can in principle still apply to a single trade

No, but only where FINRA itself, rather than either party to the trade, raises the matter for review

A software malfunction sends out erroneous orders that execute against dozens of counterparties across the market. How does that situation sit with the orientation of the clearly erroneous series?

Outside it unless every affected trade was in one security traded over the counter

Within it only if the malfunction also led the listing market to declare a trading halt

Within it only once each counterparty has asked for its own trades to be reviewed

Squarely within it, being a problem involving large numbers of parties or trades

What does FINRA Rule 11891 expect members to do about the risk of account intrusion?

Routinely review their internal controls and keep system safeguards in place to minimise it

Freeze any account trading away from the market until its owner's identity is re-verified

Carry insurance covering the losses an intruder causes to the customer accounts it reaches

Report each suspected intrusion to the Committee before any of the affected trades settle

Account intrusion is often pictured as someone illegally getting into another person's legitimate account. What other conduct does the term also cover?

Entering and cancelling orders in one's own account to give a false impression of demand for a security

Opening new accounts using false information, as a way of attempting to manipulate stock prices

Trading ahead of a customer's order using knowledge of it obtained from inside the member firm

Opening an account in one's own name and trading it far beyond the credit the firm extended

The member now asking for a transaction to be treated as clearly erroneous made the error in its terms itself. Does that bar a clearly erroneous finding?

Yes — a member bears responsibility for its own entries, so it cannot seek relief from them

Yes — a member's own errors are handled only through its own error account, outside the series

No — an obvious error in the terms can qualify even where that member made it

No, but only where the member reports the error before the transaction has settled

What does the clearly erroneous series allow a FINRA officer to do with a transaction found to be clearly erroneous?

Refer the dispute to arbitration so that a panel can fix a fair price

Fine the member at fault, leaving the transaction to stand as executed

Re-execute the order on the terms the entering member says it intended

Declare the transaction null and void, subject to appeal to the UPC Committee

A reference to the clearly erroneous definition, written in the weeks after the provision first took effect, cites it under a rule number other than 11891. What in the provision's recorded history accounts for that?

A renumbering a few months after adoption, before which the provision sat under another number

A withdrawal soon after adoption, the provision then being re-adopted under the number it has now

Nothing in it; the provision has carried the number 11891 since adoption, so the reference is simply wrong

A consolidation soon after adoption, in which it absorbed a neighbouring provision and took over that provision's number

Does the clearly erroneous series extend to unauthorised trading activity in a customer's account, where the trades print at unusual prices?

Yes — trades the customer never authorised carry an obvious error in their terms by definition

No — unauthorised trading lies outside the series, remaining a matter of alleged fraud

Yes, provided the customer complains before the trades reach their settlement date

No — the series applies only to trades executed during a disruption of a FINRA system

A mix-up between two similar ticker symbols sends an order meant for one issuer's shares to a different issuer's security, where it fills. In which term of that transaction does the obvious error lie?

The number of shares, the member now holding none of the issuer it meant to buy and some of another

The price, the fill having been struck at a level unrelated to where the intended shares were trading

The identification of the security, the order having executed against the wrong security entirely

The settlement terms, the member being bound to take delivery of a security it never agreed to hold

A customer types the wrong price into a member's online order screen, and the order passes through the member into a FINRA system. Whom does the rule make responsible for ensuring the appropriate price is entered into FINRA's systems?

The member and the customer jointly, each answering for the part of the entry it controlled

The customer, as the person whose own instruction carried the wrong price in the first place

FINRA, as the operator of the system that accepted the order in the form it arrived in

The member, as the participant in FINRA's systems through which the order was entered

FINRA Rule 11891: Clearly Erroneous Transactions Defined

What Does FINRA Rule 11891 Define as a Clearly Erroneous Transaction?

FINRA Rule 11891 establishes the foundational definition for the entire FINRA Rule 11890 Series — what makes a transaction's terms "clearly erroneous" — together with four items of Supplementary Material addressing enforcement of rulings, FINRA-system-related disruptions, the systemic scope of the clearly erroneous framework, and its explicit non-extension to account intrusion and fraud.

The rule's operative text reads: for purposes of the Rule 11890 Series, the terms of a transaction are "clearly erroneous" when there is an obvious error in any term, such as price, number of shares, or other unit of trading, or identification of the security. Supplementary Material .01, Refusal to Abide by Rulings, establishes that refusing to take action necessary to effectuate a final FINRA officer or UPC Committee decision under the Rule 11890 Series is conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade. Supplementary Material .02, Disruptions or Malfunctions Related to the Use of a FINRA System, establishes the factors FINRA considers in clearly erroneous determinations and confirms that a member's simple assertion of mistaken order entry may not suffice.

Supplementary Material .03, Extraordinary Market Conditions, describes the Rule 11890 Series' general focus on systemic problems and extraordinary market-disrupting events. Supplementary Material .04, Account Intrusion, confirms that the clearly erroneous framework does not extend to unauthorized trading or account intrusion, which remain fraud matters outside its scope. FINRA Rule 11891 was Adopted by SR-NASD-2002-127 effective January 27, 2003, Renumbered by SR-NASD-2003-80 effective May 6, 2003, and amended by SR-NASD-2005-089 effective October 1, 2005, SR-NASD-2006-104 effective March 5, 2007, and SR-FINRA-2009-068 effective February 15, 2010. Two selected notices are associated — 03-11 and 10-04.

FINRA Rule 11891 sits within the 11890 Clearly Erroneous Transactions cluster of the 11000 Uniform Practice Code as its first rule, immediately following FINRA Rule 11890's series marker and immediately preceding FINRA Rule 11892's exchange-listed securities framework.

The Core Definition: "Obvious Error" in Price, Quantity, or Security Identification

FINRA Rule 11891's operative definition — an obvious error in any term, such as price, number of shares, or other unit of trading, or identification of the security — establishes three illustrative categories of error, connected by such as (a non-exhaustive, illustrative formulation this dictionary has encountered repeatedly, including in FINRA Rule 11220's any other information deemed necessary formulation).

The first category — price — represents a commonly understood form of clearly erroneous transaction: an execution at a price wildly divergent from the prevailing market (for example, a trade executed at a price an order of magnitude away from where the security was actually trading).

The second category — number of shares, or other unit of trading — connects directly to the units-of-delivery and units-of-trading provisions this dictionary examined in FINRA Rules 11361, 11362, and 11840: an order entered for a quantity wildly different from what was intended (a "fat finger" error adding extra zeros, for example) would represent an obvious error in this category. The third category — identification of the security — connects to FINRA Rule 11220's description-of-securities framework and FINRA Rule 11100(d)'s CUSIP requirement: an order entered against the wrong security entirely (perhaps due to a CUSIP or ticker-symbol mix-up) would represent an obvious error in this category.

The obvious error standard itself is significant — it is not merely an error, but an obvious one. This threshold connects directly to Supplementary Material .02's observation that a simple assertion by a member that it made a mistake... may not be sufficient — the error must be evident from the transaction's own terms relative to the prevailing market or other objective reference points, not merely asserted after the fact by the party seeking relief.

Supplementary Material .01: Refusal to Abide by Rulings — A Second FINRA Rule 2010 Cross-Reference

Supplementary Material .01 establishes — it shall be considered conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for any member to refuse to take any action that is necessary to effectuate a final decision of a FINRA officer or the UPC Committee under this Rule 11890 Series.

This provision directly parallels the cross-referencing technique this dictionary examined in connection with FINRA Rule 11721's second sentence — failure to abide by [the ascertain-notify-correct] requirement may result in a violation of Rule 2010. Here, the parallel is even more direct: Supplementary Material .01 does not merely state that non-compliance may result in a Rule 2010 violation, but directly characterizes the refusal itself as conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade — the operative language of FINRA Rule 2010 itself. This confirms, for the second time in this dictionary's coverage of the 11000 series, that FINRA's foundational commercial-honor standard operates as a backstop enforcement mechanism for Uniform Practice Code determinations — here, ensuring that a member cannot simply ignore a final clearly-erroneous-transaction ruling (whether from a FINRA officer in the first instance under FINRA Rule 11892 or FINRA Rule 11893, or from the UPC Committee on review under FINRA Rule 11894) without exposing itself to a FINRA Rule 2010 violation.

The dual decision-maker reference — a FINRA officer or the UPC Committee — previews the structure this dictionary anticipates for FINRA Rules 11892 through 11894: a FINRA officer making an initial determination (presumably under FINRA Rule 11892 or FINRA Rule 11893's category-specific frameworks), with the UPC Committee available for review (under FINRA Rule 11894, consistent with that rule's title).

Supplementary Material .02: FINRA System Disruptions and the Limits of "Simple Assertion"

Supplementary Material .02 establishes the multi-factor standard FINRA applies — in making a determination regarding whether a transaction is clearly erroneous, FINRA takes into account the circumstances at the time of the transaction, the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and the protection of investors and the public interest.

This three-factor standard — circumstances at the time, fair and orderly market maintenance, and investor/public interest protection — establishes a holistic, context-dependent inquiry rather than a mechanical price-deviation formula. This connects to the broader pattern this dictionary has observed of the UPC Committee's (and, here, FINRA officers') discretionary, circumstances-dependent authority — FINRA Rule 11140(c) and (e)'s late-information fallbacks (the first business day the Committee considers practical having regard to the circumstances pertaining), and FINRA Rule 11810(g)'s additional-extension authority due to the circumstances involved.

The second and third sentences establish the participant-responsibility and evidentiary-threshold principles — participants in FINRA systems are responsible for ensuring that the appropriate price and type of order are entered into FINRA's systems, and simple assertion by a member that it made a mistake in entering an order or a quote, or that it failed to pay attention or to update a quote, may not be sufficient to establish that a transaction was clearly erroneous. This places the burden of accurate order entry squarely on the entering member, and confirms that a member cannot retroactively unwind an unfavorable execution merely by claiming, after the fact, that the order was a mistake — the obvious error standard from the rule's core definition must be independently evident, not established solely through the member's own post-hoc characterization of its own conduct.

Supplementary Material .03: The Systemic Focus — "Large Numbers of Parties or Trades" and Extraordinary Events

Supplementary Material .03 describes the Rule 11890 Series' general orientation — generally focused on systemic problems that involve large numbers of parties or trades, or market conditions where it would not be in the best interests of the market for one or more transactions to stand.

This systemic framing distinguishes the Rule 11890 Series' typical application from a purely individual-transaction dispute — while the core definition's obvious error standard could, in principle, apply to a single erroneous trade between two parties, Supplementary Material .03 signals that the framework is generally focused on situations with broader market impact: large numbers of parties or trades (for example, a software malfunction generating numerous erroneous orders across many counterparties) or market conditions where allowing transactions to stand would not serve the market's best interests more broadly.

The second sentence extends this systemic focus to extraordinary events — situations where an extraordinary event has occurred or is ongoing that has had a material effect on the market for a security traded over-the-counter or has caused major disruption to the marketplace. This OTC-specific reference — a security traded over-the-counter — anticipates FINRA Rule 11893's OTC Equity Securities-specific framework, suggesting that extraordinary-event scenarios may receive particular attention within that rule's provisions.

Supplementary Material .04: Account Intrusion — The Boundary Between Clearly Erroneous Transactions and Fraud

Supplementary Material .04 establishes an important scope limitation — FINRA's clearly erroneous authority under the Rule 11890 Series does not extend to unauthorized trading activity or attempts to manipulate stock prices by illegally gaining access to legitimate accounts or opening new accounts using false information (often referred to as "account intrusion"). Such suspicious trading activities relate to allegations of fraud and therefore are not within the scope of the Rule 11890 Series.

This boundary is conceptually significant — it confirms that the Rule 11890 Series addresses a categorically different problem from fraud. A clearly erroneous transaction, as the core definition establishes, involves an obvious error in a transaction's terms — a mistake, however it arose. Account intrusion, by contrast, involves a deliberate, unauthorized act — someone illegally accessing another's account, or opening an account under false information, specifically in order to manipulate prices. Even though account intrusion might, in some instances, produce transactions with anomalous prices (resembling, superficially, a clearly erroneous transaction), Supplementary Material .04 confirms that the Rule 11890 Series' remedial mechanisms (a FINRA officer's declaration that the transaction is null and void under FINRA Rule 11892 or FINRA Rule 11893, with UPC Committee review under FINRA Rule 11894) are not the appropriate vehicle for addressing such conduct — that conduct instead falls within FINRA's broader fraud-related enforcement authority.

The final sentence's affirmative guidance — members should routinely review the adequacy of their internal controls and ensure that appropriate system safeguards are in place to minimize or eliminate the potential for account intrusion — extends beyond mere scope-limitation into a proactive supervisory expectation, consistent with the broader pattern of member supervisory obligations this dictionary has observed throughout FINRA's rules.

The Absent 2010 Consolidation Amendment

FINRA Rule 11891's amendment history — concluding with SR-FINRA-2009-068 effective February 15, 2010 — is notable for what it does not include: no SR-FINRA-2010-030 or SR-FINRA-2010-060 amendment effective December 15, 2010 appears, in contrast to many other 11000-series rules this dictionary has examined. This dictionary confirms this absence as observed directly from FINRA Rule 11891's amendment history table, without speculating as to its cause — it may simply reflect that FINRA Rule 11891's substantive content (having been adopted via SR-NASD-2002-127 effective January 27, 2003, renumbered via SR-NASD-2003-80 effective May 6, 2003, and most recently amended via SR-FINRA-2009-068 effective February 15, 2010 — itself associated with Notice 10-04, the same January 15, 2010 notice this dictionary encountered on FINRA Rule 11890's own page) was already in its current, Consolidated-Rulebook-appropriate form by February 2010, obviating any need for a further December 2010 amendment of the kind that transferred other Uniform Practice Code provisions into the Consolidated Rulebook framework at that later date.

The Renumbered by SR-NASD-2003-80 effective May 6, 2003 entry confirms that FINRA Rule 11891 was renumbered effective May 6, 2003.

Connection to FINRA Rules 2010, 11100, 11110, 11220, 11361, 11362, 11721, 11840, 11890, 11892, 11893, and 11894

FINRA Rule 11891 connects directly and by substantive parallel to FINRA Rule 2010 — Supplementary Material .01's conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade language directly invokes FINRA's foundational commercial-honor standard, paralleling the cross-referencing technique this dictionary first examined in connection with FINRA Rule 11721.

It connects to FINRA Rule 11100(d) and FINRA Rule 11220 — whose CUSIP-use requirement and description-of-securities provisions address the same subject as the identification-of-the-security category in the core definition. It connects to FINRA Rule 11110 — whose UPC Committee Supplementary Material .01 names as one of two possible final-decision-makers (alongside a FINRA officer) under the Rule 11890 Series.

It connects to FINRA Rules 11361, 11362, and 11840 — whose units-of-delivery and units-of-trading provisions address the same subject as the number-of-shares-or-other-unit-of-trading category in the core definition.

It connects to FINRA Rule 11721 — sharing the FINRA-Rule-2010-cross-reference technique as a structural parallel within this dictionary's coverage. It connects to FINRA Rule 11890 — sharing Notice 10-04 as a directly displayed selected notice on both rules' pages. And it connects directly to FINRA Rules 11892, 11893, and 11894 — the remaining rules of the cluster, for which FINRA Rule 11891's core definition and four Supplementary Material items establish the foundational framework, including the FINRA-officer/UPC-Committee decision-making structure Supplementary Material .01 previews and the OTC-specific extraordinary-event focus Supplementary Material .03 anticipates for FINRA Rule 11893.

Examination Relevance and Key Takeaways

FINRA Rule 11891 is the foundational definition for the Clearly Erroneous Transactions framework — establishing what constitutes an "obvious error," the enforcement mechanism for FINRA officer and UPC Committee rulings, the multi-factor determination standard, the framework's systemic orientation, and its explicit exclusion of account intrusion and fraud.

The key points to retain are these:

FINRA Rule 11891 defines a transaction's terms as "clearly erroneous" when there is an obvious error in price, number of shares or other unit of trading, or identification of the security; Supplementary Material .01 makes refusal to effectuate a final FINRA officer or UPC Committee decision under the Rule 11890 Series itself conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade — a direct FINRA Rule 2010 parallel to the cross-referencing technique this dictionary examined in FINRA Rule 11721; Supplementary Material .02 establishes a three-factor determination standard (circumstances at the time, fair and orderly market maintenance, investor/public interest protection), places order-accuracy responsibility on participants, and confirms that a member's simple assertion of mistake may not suffice; Supplementary Material .03 describes the Rule 11890 Series as generally focused on systemic problems involving large numbers of parties or trades, or extraordinary events materially affecting an OTC security's market or causing major marketplace disruption; Supplementary Material .04 confirms the framework does not extend to account intrusion or unauthorized trading, which remain fraud matters outside its scope, while encouraging members to maintain adequate internal controls and system safeguards; and the rule was Adopted by SR-NASD-2002-127 effective January 27, 2003, Renumbered by SR-NASD-2003-80 effective May 6, 2003, and amended by SR-NASD-2005-089 effective October 1, 2005, SR-NASD-2006-104 effective March 5, 2007, and SR-FINRA-2009-068 effective February 15, 2010 — notably without a subsequent December 15, 2010 Consolidated Rulebook amendment, an exception to the pattern seen in many other 11000-series rules — with two selected notices, 03-11 and 10-04.

FINRA Rule 11891