Thu, Jan 19, 2017
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. The Big Picture: The case for emerging market debt in 2017[more]

    Benedicte Gravrand, Opalesque Geneva: Emerging market (EM) assets outperformed in 2016 mainly because of stronger fundamentals and an improving international environment, with GDP picking up speed, leading to positive earnings revisions for the first time in five years,

  2. Investing - This hedge fund made 37% betting on banks in 2016 and remains bullish after the Trump rally, Hedge fund legend David Einhorn is making a big bet on GM, After impressive 85% return in 2016, hedge fund looks to Canadian gold producer, small banks[more]

    This hedge fund made 37% betting on banks in 2016 and remains bullish after the Trump rally From Forbes.com: Can bank stocks continue to rise after a 28% surge in the KBW Bank Index in 2016, fueled by a post-election rally as stock pickers returned to the beaten down sector? Forget the s

  3. Short Selling - Long-short hedge funds are ditching the shorts to focus on longs[more]

    From Bloomberg.com: What happens when you take the "short" out of a long-short trading strategy? Some hedge funds are about to find out. Equity long-short fund managers, the biggest category in hedge funds, hold the fewest bearish stock bets on record, data compiled by Credit Suisse Group AG s

  4. SWFs - China sovereign wealth fund CIC plans more U.S. investments[more]

    From Reuters.com: China Investment Corporation (CIC), the country's sovereign wealth fund, is looking to raise alternative investments in the United States due to low returns in public markets, its chairman said on Monday. CIC will boost its investments in private equity and hedge funds as wel

  5. Some hedge funds strong start in 2017 nice contrast to 2016[more]

    With the 2016 HSBC Hedge Weekly performance rankings in the books - a year in which the same leader-board entries pretty much dominated unchallenged throughout the year - comes a new leader board that is a hard-scrabble mix of hedge fund styles and categories. What is clear after but a few short wee