Overview
On July 15, 2019, Heath Tarbert was sworn in as the 14th Chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission).[1] Over the last six months, Chairman Tarbert has made significant changes to the agency, including appointing new directors of the Divisions of Clearing and Risk (DCR), Market Oversight (DMO), and Swap Dealer & Intermediary Oversight (DSIO), as well as naming new directors of LabCFTC, the Office of International Affairs, and the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs.[2] The chairman has also introduced a new CFTC mission statement and a "new, modern" logo,[3] and recently celebrated the CFTC's 45th anniversary by ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange, along with Commissioners Brian Quintenz, Rostin Behnam, Dawn Stump, and Dan Berkovitz.[4] Chairman Tarbert remains active in promoting the CFTC and its role overseeing derivatives markets, while continuing to review the agency's organizational structure and charting the course for the Commission in the new year.
Chairman Tarbert's policy agenda for 2020 is extensive. With the first Democratic primaries taking place in two weeks, and the November 2020 presidential election only a few months away, the Commission will need to move quickly to complete the chairman’s priorities list. In fact, with the potential for the 117th Congress to reverse any regulations adopted after May or June of this year pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,[5] we expect an even more pronounced pace from the Commission in the first half of 2020. Once presidential and congressional campaigns are in full swing later this year, we also expect the Commission's advisory committees to proceed with meetings and reports to lay the groundwork for 2021 agendas, regardless of which political party occupies the White House.
Lawyers and policy advisors in Steptoe's Financial Services Group share the following projections about major developments we expect to see at the CFTC this year, which will undoubtedly present derivatives market participants with risks and opportunities.
The CFTC's Policymaking Agenda
In October 2019, Chairman Tarbert identified "about 195 tangible, focused actions that the agency can do over the next several years" to achieve the goals in his strategic plan.[6] Some of the specific items he previewed in those remarks have already been accomplished (i.e., amendments to Part 4),[7] and others are more imminent (i.e., an expected proposal on position limits in the next few weeks).
As we review the chairman's lengthy policymaking agenda, we think the following items will progress through the Commission in the coming months. In some cases, the proposals will likely be "fast tracked" towards permanent adoption before the 2020 presidential election or before regulations become subject to the 117th Congress's review under the Congressional Review Act. In other cases, as we have seen in prior presidential election years, proposals will go out for public comment in order the reserve the "last word" on an issue in an attempt to influence future policy debates that take place after the election.
This list does not specifically address all of the work anticipated by the Commission, but is a synopsis of some of the higher priority topics. For example, while we do not project a specific agenda with respect to digital currencies, we expect that issue to occupy a significant amount of the Commission’s time and attention. Chairman Tarbert made headlines in October 2019 when he confirmed that – in addition to bitcoin – the cryptocurrency ether is a commodity, and thus will be regulated by the CFTC as such.[8] He also anticipates ether futures trading on US markets in the near future. For other digital assets, though, the chairman appears to be willing to defer to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In a November 2019 interview, Chairman Tarbert acknowledged that the SEC's determination of whether a digital asset is or is not a security is the "initial threshold determination."[9] If that digital asset is deemed to be a security by the SEC, then the CFTC will not treat it as a commodity. Regardless of the specific issue or project, we expect the CFTC will continue to play a prominent leadership role in this policy debate.
Market Structure Initiatives
Name Give-up for SEFs: Approved by the Commission on December 18, 2019, this proposal would amend Part 37 of CFTC's regulations to prohibit "post-trade name give-up" practices for swaps that are anonymously executed on a swap execution facility (SEF) and are intended to be cleared.[10] The public comment period closes on March 2, 2020.[11] At its most basic level, this debate puts large buy-side firms seeking access to dealer-to-dealer trading platforms on one side and traditional dealing banks on the other. If adopted, the Commission will need to articulate its legal authority to prohibit the longstanding commercial practice of market participants learning the identity of their counterparty after execution of a trade.
Position Limits: Last proposed with unanimous support by the Commission in December 2016 under Chairman Timothy Massad,[12] any new position limits proposal would likely seek to address speculative position limits for exempt and agricultural commodity futures and option contracts, and certain physical commodity swaps. Chairman Tarbert has described the initiative as providing "an appropriately flexible bona fide hedging exemption" that "will allow energy producers, merchandisers, and distributors to better manage the many risks of their businesses."[13] We expect the likely imminent proposal to be more deferential to exchanges and allow (or require) the exchange, rather than the Commission, to set position limit levels based on their role as market operators. Market participants should expect that the proposal, whatever it looks like, to "address[]the concerns of end users, . . . ensure[]that bona fide hedging is not restricted, and that risk management is there."[14]
Regulation AT: Last put forward in November 2016, the Commission's second Regulation Automated Trading (Reg AT) release under Chairman Massad supplemented the December 2015 proposal[15] to establish a series of risk controls, transparency measures, and other safeguards to enhance the regulatory regime for automated trading, specifically automation in order placement and execution in US derivatives markets.[16] During his confirmation hearing, then-nominee Tarbert said that "Reg AT would be something [he] would want to get sort of back up and running," indicating the importance of the initiative to him.[17] We expect the chairman to present a modified version of the 2016 proposal for Commission consideration. The release will likely be far more principles-based, in a manner consistent with Chairman Tarbert’s regulatory philosophy. In terms of specific predictions, we agree with Commissioner Quintenz's assessment that the "source code" provision in the last proposal "is D-E-A-D."[18]
Swap Data Reporting: The Commission's post-trade reporting rules, led by DMO, were first adopted in 2012.[19] These rules set forth the data that must be submitted "as soon as technologically practicable" for public dissemination and to the swap data warehouse for regulatory oversight purposes.[20] In 2013, the Commission published a "Path Forward" for revising these rules and harmonizing corresponding obligations with other jurisdictions,[21] and amendments to Parts 43 and 45 were proposed in May 2019 (comments were extended twice and now close on January 27, 2020).[22] We expect this work to continue at the staff level, with the potential that certain parts of the proposal move forward towards final adoption prior to the election. We believe that much of this work is apolitical, and that the CFTC's efforts to harmonize swap data reporting requirements with the SEC and other jurisdictions with comparable regulations (a result of the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures and the Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions efforts to harmonize critical data elements) will be supported by most, if not all, of the commissioners. The ultimate timing of this work will depend on Commission resources and whether the chairman or the commissioners make swap data reporting rule amendments a priority in relation to the other items on the short-term agenda.
Market Participant Regulation
Swap Dealer Capital and Financial Reporting: The Commission recently approved the reopening of the comment period (for 75 days) for the proposed capital and financial reporting rules for swap dealers and major swap participants that are not subject to the capital requirements of a prudential regulator (i.e., non-bank swap dealers and non-bank major swap participants).[23] The reopening of the comment period "is intended to provide interested parties with sufficient time to provide comments, supported by empirical data and analysis."[24] The CFTC's approach mirrors the one taken by the SEC, which reopened the comment period on its rule proposal in October 2018,[25] and subsequently adopted a final rule in June 2019.[26] Because the CFTC's rule includes significant components of the SEC's final capital rule, the public comment period allows market participants to offer additional feedback now that the SEC's work is complete. The SEC moved very quickly from the reopening of the public comment period to adopting its final rule. We expect the CFTC to do the same, and complete this important initiative in the coming months.
Part 4 – Form CPO-PQR: The Commission recently adopted amendments to Part 4, intended to offer regulatory relief to commodity pool operators (CPOs) and commodity trading advisors.[27] We expect this rulemaking, started by the "Project KISS" initiative led by then-Chairman Christopher Giancarlo, to be the first in several attempts to refine the scope of Part 4 and harmonize the rules with corresponding regulations for asset managers. Specifically, Chairman Tarbert has identified "revisions to Form PQR, that goes to SEC and CFTC" as one area ripe for Commission consideration.[28] Under that approach, the SEC and CFTC might consider harmonizing the information reported to the SEC in Form PF[29] and the information reported to the CFTC in Form CPO-PQR[30] (and possibly even the National Futures Association (NFA), who maintains its own form).[31] Alternative approaches may include establishing one "model form" for purposes of reporting obligations or changing the threshold levels for CPOs to reduce the scope and frequency of the reporting obligations.
Margin Treatment of Separate Accounts at FCMs: The longstanding issue of futures commission merchants (FCMs) calculating margin among separate accounts for the same beneficial owner is likely one that will require additional engagement by the Commission, although it is unclear whether that will come in the form of traditional Commission action, formal staff action, or informal staff action. The debate, which has existed for more than five years since the publication of an alert by the Joint Audit Committee,[32] involves certain FCM and derivatives clearing organization (DCO) regulations related to guaranteeing or minimizing FCM customer loss and how the FCM, as a DCO clearing member, manages its risk. In July 2019, CFTC staff provided interpretive guidance and no-action relief.[33] More recently, in September 2019, the directors of DSIO and DCR issued a statement indicating that staff would issue no further guidance and no extensions to the timeline.[34] Furthermore, the directors made clear that they expect participants to be compliant by September 15, 2020. In the last few months, the issue has further escalated as some FCMs have found themselves the focus of "special reviews" related to their compliance with these rules, notwithstanding the agency staff statement providing another eight months to amend "documentation, policies, and practices."[35] Given the questions about how and when market participants need to be able to demonstrate compliance with these rules, including a recent petition for rulemaking by a prominent industry group,[36] and the effect this issue has on DCOs, FCMs, asset managers, and end-users, we expect the Commission and its staff will need to respond to the formal and informal requests for direction in the coming months.
Cross Border Application of the CFTC's Rules
Following on the rule proposals and the white paper published by former Chairman Giancarlo,[37] Chairman Tarbert has pledged to focus his chairmanship on "international cooperation"[38] The chairman's approach to cross-border application of the CFTC's rules originates from section 2(i) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which begins with the presumption that the CEA does not apply to swaps activities outside the United States except where activities have a "direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States."[39] We have seen Chairman Tarbert's views of the cross-border application of the CFTC's rules present themselves in rule proposals. His approach has also tempered the trans-Atlantic debate around derivatives clearing organization oversight, where Chairman Tarbert has been clear that, in his view, EMIR 2.2. "poses a potential challenge" to international cooperation.[40] However, his speeches to date indicate a willingness to "grant deference if deference is granted in return," while reserving the "authority of the CFTC and America to regulate and supervise our own clearinghouses."[41]
Alternative Compliance for DCOs, Exempt DCOs, non-FCM Intermediation: The Commission in July 2019, led by then-Chairman Giancarlo, voted unanimously to support a proposal that would establish a "registration with alternative compliance" regime for non-US DCOs that do not pose substantial risk to the US financial system.[42] These entities would register with the CFTC, but demonstrate compliance with the CEA's DCO core principles through compliance with their home country regulatory regime, subject to certain conditions and limitations. In a second release, the Commission (on a 3-2 party line vote) approved a proposal that would allow DCOs that are exempt from registration (exempt DCOs) to clear swaps for US customers under certain circumstances, and would also allow a non-US intermediary to accept funds from US persons to margin the swaps at exempt DCOs without registering as an FCM.[43] The future adoption of these two proposals is uncertain, as commissioners and commenters have raised a number of questions. Commissioners Berkovitz and Behnam expressed concerns about systemic risk and customer protection (i.e., the bankruptcy treatment of an insolvent FCM clearing for customers directly at, or through a foreign member of, the exempt DCO), as well as the precedent it may establish for non-FCM intermediaries facilitating trading outside the United States.[44] Even industry groups, who largely support the Commission's attempts to facilitate US customer access to global derivatives markets and clearinghouses, advocate for adoption of an approach for clearing swaps on non-US DCOs that resembles the CFTC's Part 30 regime for the clearing of foreign futures.
Registration Thresholds and Certain Swap Dealer Requirements: Just last month, on a 3-2 vote, the Commission approved a proposal that addresses the cross-border application of the registration thresholds and certain requirements applicable to swap dealers and major swap participants, and establishes a formal process for requesting comparability determinations for such requirements.[45] The proposal was published in the Federal Register two weeks ago and it is too early to predict the trajectory of this release, but the spirited discussion among the commissioners at the December 18 open meeting indicates there is not a consensus on how certain issues, such as the proposal's determination that "ANE Transactions" (transactions arranged, negotiated, or executed in the United States) "will not be considered a relevant factor for purposes of applying" the proposal and, as a result, "all foreign-based swaps entered into between a non-US swap entity and a non-US person are treated the same regardless of whether the swap is an ANE Transaction."[46] The public comment period closes on March 9, 2020.
CFTC Advisory Committees
The CFTC's advisory committees have maintained an active part of the CFTC's engagement with industry. Over the last few months, Commissioner Behnam's Market Risk Advisory Committee has discussed interest rate benchmark reform, climate-related market risk, and central counterparties risk; Commissioner Stump's Global Markets Advisory Committee has monitored global uncleared margin rule implementation and EMIR 2.2; Commissioner Quintenz's Technology Advisory Committee has explored automated trading, distributed ledger technology, virtual currencies, and cybersecurity; and Commissioner Berkovitz's Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee has addressed environmental market developments and exchange-traded environmental derivatives contracts. Chairman Tarbert, who sponsors the Agricultural Advisory Committee, announced that the CFTC has renewed its partnership with the Kansas State University's Center for Risk Management Education and Research.[47] The CFTC will host its Agricultural Commodity Futures Conference April 1-2, 2020 in Kansas City.[48]
We expect the advisory committees to continue their work throughout the year. In particular, we expect Commissioner Behnam's Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee, which is comprised of 35 expert members from various disciplines related to the risks of climate change, will work to prepare a report that will identify and examine climate related financial and market risks.[49] Similarly, Commissioner Stump recently formed a Subcommittee on Margin Requirements for Non-Cleared Swaps, established "to consider issues raised by the implementation of margin requirements for non-cleared swaps, to identify challenges associated with forthcoming implementation phases, and to make recommendations via a report for the [Global Markets Advisory Committee] to consider in advising the Commission."[50]
Examination Priorities
In 2019, for the first time, the CFTC's operating divisions announced their examination priorities.[51] In last year's release, DMO, DSIO, and DCR each outlined their agenda for the year. The items ranged from very specific (i.e., accepted forms of FCM non-cash margin) to more general (i.e., exchange surveillance for disruptive trading). From the divisions' release, however, market participants could identify certain trends, such as the increased attention placed on cybersecurity risks and cryptocurrency market surveillance. In January 2020, the SEC's Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) announced its examination priorities for this year, marking the eighth year of its publication.[52] Recently, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) also announced the areas of focus for risk monitoring, surveillance, and examination programs for the year.[53]
Without additional details from the CFTC, the only recent indication for examination priorities comes from remarks from the DSIO director, who announced a "program of targeted thematic reviews of select large swap dealers and CPOs" last September.[54] The directors of DMO and DCR have not made similar public announcements. Market participants received more details about the DSIO program at the end of October 2019 when the DSIO director shared that, for example, examinations will be conducted within five business days onsite, that only a limited number of firms would be examined, and that the size of the firm and the relative amount of its derivatives trading will help select the firms.[55]
While we understand these specific examinations may not take place as early as the first quarter of this year, as originally announced, market participants can expect this approach to examinations to result in more holistic evaluations to consider "key compliance issues like risk management and risk reporting."[56] Furthermore, DSIO's vocal interest in swap dealer and CPO examination objectives will certainly result in the NFA's examinations also focusing more closely on these and related issues.
Chief Compliance Officer Annual Reports
Related to examinations, we expect increased attention placed on the annual chief compliance officer reports filed by FCMs and swap dealers, as well as corresponding reports filed by other registrant classes.[57] In December 2019, DSIO issued an advisory "to provide further guidance on certain requirements . . . in connection with the preparation and submission of chief compliance officer ('CCO') annual compliance reports."[58] Among the areas addressed, the advisory provides guidance for six specific areas of the CCO annual report.
While the topics addressed range from broad (i.e., the appropriate threshold for determining materiality) to specific (i.e., using exact certification language), the advisory emphasizes an increased expectation for quantifiable metrics in response to some of the requirements in Rule 3.3. For example, the advisory requests swap dealers "reasonably estimate the portion of the aggregated [enterprise-wide] numerical information dedicated to [swap dealer] compliance" and tells registrants that "the most useful discussions [of a firm's operational resources] would include a description of the software, including the name of the specific software used for compliance purposes, how the software is used by personnel, and how the software fits into the entity’s overall regulatory compliance program."[59]
Enforcement Activity in 2020
The Commission's enforcement regime will likely continue to focus on market manipulation, retail commodity transactions and the definition of "actual delivery" of a commodity that can exempt the transactions from the CEA, trading on the basis on material non-public information, and supervision, registration, and spoofing claims. Continued close coordination between the CFTC and Department of Justice is expected. At the same time, we do not expect any change in the Commission's commitment to rewarding parties who extensively cooperate by self-reporting potential wrongdoing and sharing the information learned from internal investigations.
The CFTC's theories of what constitutes market manipulation may be tested in CFTC v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., alleging manipulation and attempted manipulation of the prices of wheat futures and cash wheat, among other violations.[60] The case is now scheduled to be tried in the Chicago federal district court, following the aborted settlement the parties entered into last year.[61] The settlement itself spawned litigation over the scope of its terms when the Commission and several commissioners made public statements about the settlement that the plaintiffs believed violated a confidentiality clause in the agreement. The district court vitiated the agreement and set the case for trial.[62] If the trial proceeds, it will be the Commission's first trial of manipulation claims based on alleged violations of CFTC Rule 180.1, the agency's anti-manipulation rule adopted pursuant to its expanded statutory authority under the Dodd-Frank Act.[63] The outcome of the enforcement action can be expected to affect the parallel civil class action against the defendants brought by traders in the futures markets during the time of the alleged violation.[64] The court recently granted class certification in that case.[65]
If the past is prologue, there may be no abatement in new spoofing cases, but we would expect them, like most of the spoofing cases brought to date, to concern trading activity from several years ago. With the development of software that improves firms' ability to detect patterns of spoofing and exchange surveillance staffs' vigilance and prompt inquiries to traders when they detect potential spoofing, the incidence of spoofing activity may recede.
The close coordination between the Division of Enforcement and the Department of Justice will likely continue, and we expect this will lead to potential greater exposure to criminal charges for investigated parties. Wrapped up in this might be the advisory issued last year by the Department of Enforcement discussing the potential for investigating foreign corrupt practices.[66] The Enforcement Division director previously argued that foreign corrupt practices might constitute fraud or manipulation, and thus violate the CEA.[67] Separately, companies and individuals involved in digital asset and crypto-currency markets and sales can expect continued enforcement scrutiny of those markets as the Commission continues to focus on customer protection and market integrity.
Finally, proposed legislation to lower the intent standard for aiding and abetting from willful and knowing conduct to recklessness has been voted out of the US House Agriculture Committee.[68] If enacted, the new statute might expand the reach of aiding and abetting liability although what conduct would fall within it that was not within the current provision is not clear. Aiding and abetting always has required awareness of one’s involvement in an unlawful activity and it is not clear that a recklessness standard would change that.
[1] Press Release, CFTC, Tarbert Begins Term as 14th CFTC Chairman (July 15, 2019).
[2] Press Release, CFTC, Chairman Tarbert Announces Key Executive Leadership Appointment (July 30, 2019); Press Release, CFTC, Chairman Tarbert Announces CFTC Executive Leadership Appointments (July 18, 2019).
[3] CFTC (@CFTC), Twitter (Jan. 13, 2020, 10:10 AM) ("New year, new look. Today, the #CFTC unveiled a new logo and branding that represents its dedication to promoting the integrity, resilience and vibrancy of the US derivatives markets through sound regulation. Visit https://cftc.gov to check it out!"); Heath Tarbert, Chairman, CFTC, Remarks to the 35th Annual FIA Expo 2019 (Oct. 30, 2019).
[4] CFTC (@CFTC), Twitter (Jan. 13, 2020, 9:32 AM) ("TUNE IN NOW to see @ChairmanHeath and his fellow commissioners ring the bell and open the @NYSE. @CFTCberkovitz @CFTCstump @CFTCquintenz @CFTCbehnam.").
[5] 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
[6] See supra note 3 (Remarks to the 35th Annual FIA Expo 2019).
[7] Press Release, CFTC Approves Amendments Simplifying Rules for Asset Managers at November 25 Open Meeting, CFTC (Nov. 25, 2019).
[8] Press Release, IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Chairman Tarbert Comments on Cryptocurrency Regulation at Yahoo! Finance All Markets Summit, CFTC (Oct. 10, 2019).
[9] The Challenge of Defining Digital Assets (video), Global Financial Leadership Conference (Nov. 18, 2019).
[10] Post-Trade Name Give-Up on Swap Execution Facilities, 84 Fed. Reg. 72262 (Dec. 31, 2019).
[11] See Comments for Proposed Rule 84 FR 72262, CFTC.
[12] Position Limits for Derivatives, 81 Fed. Reg. 96704 (Dec. 30, 2016).
[13] Heath Tarbert, Chairman, CFTC, Opening Statement Before the Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee (Nov. 7, 2019).
[14] See supra note 3 (Remarks to the 35th Annual FIA Expo 2019).
[15] Regulation Automated Trading, 80 Fed. Reg. 78824 (Dec. 17, 2015).
[16] Regulation Automated Trading, 81 Fed. Reg. 85334 (Nov. 25, 2016).
[17] Nomination Hearing of Heath P. Tarbert, of Maryland, to be Chairman and a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Before the S. Comm. on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 116th Cong. 48 (2019).
[18] Brian Quintenz, Commissioner, CFTC, Keynote Remarks before the Symphony Innovate 2017 Conference (Oct. 4, 2017).
[19] Real-Time Public Reporting of Swap Transaction Data, 77 Fed. Reg. 1182 (Jan. 9, 2012).
[20] Id. at 1191.
[21] Cross-Border Regulation of Swaps/Derivatives Discussions between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the European Union – A Path Forward, CFTC (July 11, 2013).
[22] Certain Swap Data Repository and Data Reporting Requirements, 84 Fed. Reg. 57831 (Oct. 29, 2019).
[23] Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 84 Fed. Reg. 69664 (Dec. 19, 2019).
[24] Press Release, CFTC Approves One Final, Two Proposed Rules at December 10 Open Meeting, CFTC (Dec. 10, 2019).
[25] See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 83 Fed. Reg. 53007 (Oct. 19, 2018).
[26] See Capital, Margin and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital and Segregation Requirements for Broker Dealers, 84 Fed. Reg. 43872 (Aug. 22, 2019).
[27] Registration and Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool Operators (CPOs) and Commodity Trading Advisors: Family Offices and Exempt CPOs, 84 Fed. Reg. 67355 (Dec. 10, 2019); Registration and Compliance Requirements for Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors: Registered Investment Companies, Business Development Companies, and Definition of Reporting Person, 84 Fed. Reg. 67343 (Dec. 10, 2019).
[28] See supra note 3 (Remarks to the 35th Annual FIA Expo 2019).
[29] Form PF (Reporting Form for Investment Advisers to Private Funds and Certain Commodity Pool Operators and Commodity Trading Advisors).
[30] 17 CFR Appendix A to Part 4 (Form CPO-PQR).
[31] CPO Form PQR, NFA.
[32] JAC Alert No. 14-03 (May 21, 2014).
[33] CFTC Letter No. 19-17 (July 10, 2019).
[34] Joshua B. Sterling and Clark Hutchison, Directors of DSIO and DCR, Statement Concerning the Treatment of Separate Accounts of the Same Beneficial Owner (Sep. 13, 2019).
[35] Id.
[36] Press Release, FIA Seeks Clarity from the CFTC on Permissible Market Practices for Margining Separate Accounts, FIA (Jan. 22, 2020).
[37] Press Release, Chairman Giancarlo Releases Cross-Border White Paper, CFTC (Oct. 1, 2018).
[38] See supra note 3 (Remarks to the 35th Annual FIA Expo 2019).
[39] 7 U.S.C. § 2(i).
[40] See supra note 3 (Remarks to the 35th Annual FIA Expo 2019).
[41] Id.
[42] Registration With Alternative Compliance for Non-US Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 84 Fed. Reg. 34819 (July 19, 2019).
[43] Exemption From Derivatives Clearing Organization Registration, 84 Fed. Reg. 35456 (July 23, 2019).
[44] Dan Berkovitz, Commissioner, CFTC, Dissenting Statement on the Supplemental Proposal for Exemption from Derivatives Clearing Organization Registration (July 11, 2019); Rostin Behnam, Commissioner, CFTC, Dissenting Statement on the Exemption from Derivatives Clearing Organization Registration; Notice of Supplemental Proposal (July 11, 2019).
[45] Cross-Border Application of the Registration Thresholds and Certain Requirements Applicable to Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 85 Fed. Reg. 952 (Jan. 8, 2020).
[46] Id. at 978.
[47] NGFA Interviews New CFTC Chairman Heath Tarbert, Nat'l Grain and Feed Ass'n (Aug. 16, 2019).
[48] Id.
[49] Press Release, CFTC Commissioner Behnam Announces Members of the Market Risk Advisory Committee's New Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee, CFTC (Nov. 14, 2019).
[50] Press Release, CFTC Commissioner Stump Announces Members of the Global Markets Advisory Committee's New Subcommittee on Margin Requirements for Non-Cleared Swaps, CFTC (Jan. 10, 2020).
[51] Press Release, CFTC Divisions Announce Examination Priorities, CFTC (Feb. 12, 2019).
[52] OCIE 2020 Examination Priorities, SEC (Jan. 2020).
[53] 2020 Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter, FINRA (Jan. 9, 2020).
[54] Joshua B. Sterling, DSIO Director, CFTC, Remarks Before the District of Columbia Bar Association (Sep. 25, 2019).
[55] Joshua B. Sterling, DSIO Director, CFTC, Remarks Before the Alternative Investment Management Association (AIMA) (Oct. 30, 2019).
[56] See supra note 53.
[57] See 17 CFR §§ 37.1500(d) (SEFs); 39.10(c)(3) (DCOs); 49.22(e) (SDRs).
[58] CFTC Staff Adv.19-24 (Dec. 4, 2019).
[59] Id. at 6.
[60] US Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-02881 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 1, 2015).
[61] See Lydia Beyoud, Kraft's $16 Million Settlement With CFTC Axed by Judge, Bloomberg (Oct. 23, 2019 7:34 PM).
[62] See Dave Michaels, Market Regulator Heads Back to Court Against Kraft and Mondelez, Wall St. J. (Jan. 3, 2020 8:00 AM). The Court has set a status hearing for February 13, 2020, at which time the parties will set a trial date.
[63] 17 CFR § 180.1.
[64] Ploss v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02937 (N.D. Ill. filed Apr. 2, 2015).
[65] See Dorothy Atkins, Kraft Investors Get Class Cert. In Wheat Market Rigging Suit, Law360 (Jan. 3, 2020).
[66] Advisory on Self Reporting and Cooperation for CEA Violations Involving Foreign Corrupt Practices, CFTC (March 2019).
[67] James M. McDonald, Director of Enforcement, Remarks at the American Bar Association's National Institute on White Collar Crime (Mar. 6, 2019).
[68] See CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2019, H.R. 4895, 116th Cong. (2019).
