Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP hosted a webinar program on Wednesday, November 13, to address the proposed new position limits rule and how it will affect market participants.
Click here to download the presentation materials. An audio recording is available upon request. Please email Allison Geggatt at email@example.com for more information.
Please contact any of the following Cadwalader attorneys if you have any questions.
Paul J. Pantano, Jr. +1 202 862 2410
Elizabeth Hastings +1 202 862 2472
Jonathan Flynn +1 202 862 2214
Neal Kumar +1 202 862 2288
Natalie Mitchell +1 202 862 2218
At its open meeting on November, 5, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) approved two Position Limits Proposals.
With a 3-1 vote, the Commissioners approved Proposed Regulation on Position Limits for Derivatives.
With a unanimous vote, the Commission also approved the Proposed Regulations for Aggregation of Accounts Under Part 150, Position Limits.
For additional information and documents from the meeting, visit the CFTC’s website at: http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/opaevent_cftcstaff110513
Following the open meeting of the CFTC on November 5, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP will host a webinar program to address the proposed new position limits rule and how it will affect your business.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. ET/4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. CT
Additional information is forthcoming. Date and time are subject to change.
If you have any questions, please contact Allison Geggatt at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, November 5, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. ET to consider:
- Position Limits for Derivatives
- Aggregation of Accounts Under Part 150, Position Limits
Watch a webcast of the meeting at www.cftc.gov or call their toll-free to be connected to an audio feed. Click here for more information.
On July 24, 2013, Judge Steven W. Rhodes of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan approved the City of Detroit’s motion to extend the automatic stay to various non-debtor parties, including certain state officials. The Court’s ruling effectively stays all pending litigation against the City, allows the City to continue to move forward with its chapter 9 case, and paves the way for a dispute over the City’s eligibility to file for chapter 9. read more
On the afternoon of July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit filed its highly anticipated petition for relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This marks the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in United States history. As a result of the Chapter 9 filing, all actions by creditors to collect prepetition claims against the City are enjoined through the imposition of an automatic stay, except for the application of special revenues pledged to indebtedness. read more
By Gregory Lawrence, Joseph Williams and Ryan Norfolk
By order issued July 12, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) denied requests for rehearing of its March 9, 2012 order denying the complaint of DC Energy, LLC (“DCE”) and DC Energy Mid-Atlantic, LLC (“DCE Mid-Atlantic” and, together with DCE, “Complainants”) against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (“PJM”). Complainants and Scylla Energy Inc. (“Scylla”) filed requests for rehearing. In denying rehearing, the Commission affirmed its finding that the Complainants’ internal bilateral transactions (“IBTs”) did not display the characteristics of transactions contemplating the physical transfer of energy, and were thus not properly reported to PJM through its eSchedule tool for purposes of offsetting deviation charges.
The Rehearing Order resolves much of the uncertainty the Complaint Order created concerning the nature of the “physicality” requirement for reportable, Tariff-compliant IBTs in PJM. However, the Commission did little to address the argument that its general holding, now affirmed on rehearing, leads to the conclusion that FERC lacks jurisdiction over the transactions because they could not be physically delivered, were intended to be financially settled, and thus as non-reportable IBTs would be swaps regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. read more