Fri, Mar 27, 2015
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. Other Voices: Does the hedge fund industry benefit society?[more]

    This article was authored by Don Steinbrugge, Chairman of Agecroft Partners, a US-based global consulting and third party marketing firm for hedge funds. It is no secret that the hedge fund industry is viewed negatively by a la

  2. Private credit comes into focus for investors[more]

    Bailey McCann, Opalesque New York: As investors look for a way out of the low yield/no yield environment, private credit is becoming an increasingly attractive asset class, according to a white paper from Bayshore Capital Advisors. Private credit has grown steadily since the financial crisis as

  3. M&A - Hedge funds no longer attractive targets for banks, reinsurers, Blackstone buys stake in Christopher Pucillo’s Solus event-driven hedge fund[more]

    Hedge funds no longer attractive targets for banks, reinsurers From Institutionalinvestor.com: Swiss RE, the world’s second-largest reinsurer, is looking to sell its 15 percent stake in Jersey, Channel Islands–based hedge fund firm Brevan Howard Asset Management. Morgan Stanley reported

  4. Opalesque Radio: Threadneedle expects continuing equity volatility this year[more]

    Benedicte Gravrand, Opalesque Geneva: Investors should expect more volatility, which is signaling a "slow moving" top to the market, KKM Financial’s founder and CEO Jeff Kilburg told CNBC on Monday. And this volatility is going

  5. Hedge funds show strong performance of 2.52% so far in 2015[more]

    Komfie Manalo, Opalesque Asia: The hedge fund industry got off to a strong start in 2015 "completely unmindful" of the poor performance last year, according to data provider Preqin. According to Preqin, following a year which saw the average he

 

banner