Fri, Sep 30, 2016
A A A
Welcome Guest
Free Trial RSS
Get FREE trial access to our award winning publications
Industry Updates

Court strikes down CFTC position limits rules

Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Opalesque Industry Update - Latest note from Dechert reports that last Friday, September 28th, the U.S. Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. (“Court”) struck down the commodity speculative position limit rulemaking that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) had adopted on October 18, 2011, which was scheduled to become effective on October 12, 2012.

Significantly for the first time, the final position limit rules applied to over-the-counter swaps and other derivatives (also referred to as economically equivalent or look-alike contracts). The plaintiffs in the action were the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“Plaintiffs”). Below is a brief summary of the Court’s decision.

The Court stated that the heart of the case was whether the defendant CFTC had misinterpreted its Congressional statutory authority to set position limits. Finding in favor of the Plaintiffs (on motion for summary judgment), the Court struck down the rules that had set position limits on futures, options, and swaps on 28 types of commodities.

The Plaintiffs argued that the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) required the CFTC to determine whether position limits were necessary and appropriate to prevent excessive speculation in the commodity markets. The CFTC argued that the Dodd- Frank Act amendments mandated the CFTC to set position limits without regard to whether the limits are “necessary” or “appropriate.”

The Court noted that the CFTC’s interpretation of the statute was internally inconsistent, by determining that the setting of position limits was mandatory but only imposing limits for contracts related to certain (and not all) commodities.

The Court noted that the language of the CEA had not changed substantially since it was adopted and that, in other instances of position limit rulemaking, the CFTC had historically studied and made a determination that limits were “necessary.”

The Court declined to side with the CFTC where the CFTC argued that the Dodd-Frank Act converted the CFTC’s discretion to set position limits into a mandate.

Both parties agreed that the language “as appropriate” in the statute granted the CFTC discretion. However, the CFTC argued “as appropriate” went to actual levels of position limits, whereas the Plaintiffs argued that it went to whether the CFTC must set limits at any particular time at all. The Court did not take sides on this issue, but remanded the issue to the CFTC to resolve the ambiguity.

The Court determined that the CEA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, was ambiguous. But that, since the CFTC did not recognize this ambiguity when adopting the rules, its interpretation of the statute was not entitled to the Court’s deference.

The Court declined to determine whether the CFTC’s “aggregation” portion of the position limit rules were arbitrary and capricious or in violation of the cost-benefit analysis required of CFTC rulemaking. The Court was also unwilling to determine if the aggregation portion of the rules should stand alone and be severed from the rest of the rules, and did not want to interfere with the CFTC’s current rulemaking on this issue. The Court therefore decided to remand the entirety of the rules to the CFTC, leaving it to the CFTC to decide whether or not to amend the aggregation portion on any re-adoption.

The Court vacated the rules (meaning that they will not go into effect while on remand), remanding the rules to the CFTC to resolve the ambiguities identified in the Court’s decision and to determine if the position limits set in the rules are necessary to prevent excessive speculation.

Press release

bc

What do you think?

   Use "anonymous" as my name    |   Alert me via email on new comments   |   
Today's Exclusives Today's Other Voices More Exclusives
Previous Opalesque Exclusives                                  
More Other Voices
Previous Other Voices                                               
Access Alternative Market Briefing

 



  • Top Forwarded
  • Top Tracked
  • Top Searched
  1. Eden Rock buys Gottex stake in ERG Asset Management[more]

    Matthias Knab, Opalesque: Eden Rock Group announced the purchase of Gottex’s stake in ERG Asset Management and so the firm is now wholly owned by Eden Rock. The two firms established the joint venture in 2011 to focus on providing cost effective solutions to funds holding illiquid investments, as

  2. "Hedge fund industry needs to shrink"[more]

    Komfie Manalo, Opalesque Asia: Writing for CNBC, Josh Brown, creator of The Reformed Broker blog and financial advisor for Ritholtz We

  3. Strategy - Voyager Management wants to invest in smaller hedge funds[more]

    From Valuewalk.com: Voyager Management, a $475 million fund of funds, is looking to downsize the hedge fund’s in which they invest, looking for smaller funds with assets under management that enable the fund to be nimble. The fund is looking for noncorrelation and will consider long / short equity

  4. Asia - Quant hedge funds are China's hot new export, Europe banks return to Korean brokerage market; target debt, alternative products[more]

    Quant hedge funds are China's hot new export From Bloomberg.com: Add China’s quant shops to the list of hedge funds branching out across Asian markets. Quantitative money managers from the world’s second-largest economy are opening offshore funds at a never-before-seen pace, according to

  5. Hedge funds pull back from Deutsche Bank[more]

    Bailey McCann, Opalesque New York: Hedge funds are pulling some of their business from Deutsche Bank, according to a Bloomberg report. People familiar with th