Securities Law Commons^™

In The Midst Of Bankruptcy: How Cryptocurrency's Classification Affects Creditors Who Were Once Customers, Mia Qu

Washington Law Review

In 2022, Congress proposed the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act to amend the Commodity Exchange Act and define a new type of commodity: digital commodity. The definition of digital commodity encompasses cryptocurrency and provides the Commodity Futures Trading Commission with jurisdiction over digital asset transactions. This definition of digital commodity has two important implications. First, it signals the lawmakers’ tendency to generalize cryptocurrency as a commodity. Second, it brings complications into how creditors—especially individual crypto account holders—can recover in the recent bankruptcy cases involving prominent crypto companies. This Comment contains four components. First, it provides a brief explanation of cryptocurrency …

Dodd-Frank And The Spoofing Prohibition In Commodities Markets, Meric Sar

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Commodity Exchange Act and adopted an explicit prohibition regarding activity commonly known as spoofing in commodities markets. This Note argues that the spoofing prohibition is a necessary step towards improved market discipline and price integrity in the relevant commodities markets. It fills an important gap in the CEA in relation to an elusive form of price manipulation activity by providing an explicit statutory authority on which regulators and market operators may rely in policing suspect trading strategies falling under the spoofing umbrella.

Congress’ explicit denouncement of spoofing as an illegal act has ramifications not only …

Collateral Damage: The Legal And Regulatory Protections For Customer Margin In The U.S. Derivatives Markets, Christian Chamorro-Courtland

William & Mary Business Law Review

This Article provides a detailed analysis ofthe laws and regulations that apply to margin posted by customers entering into futures and cleared swaps contracts in the United States. It describes the types ofmargin accounts used by Futures Commission Merchants (“FCM”) and Central Counterparties (“CCPs”). It analyzes the rights of customers upon the insolvency of their FCM.

First, this Article explains why futures customers currently receive a lower level of protection under the Commodity Exchange Act than that received by cleared swaps customers under the Dodd-Frank Act. On the one hand, futures customers currently share risk as co-owners for margin that …

Over-The-Counter Derivatives In A Global Financial Marketplace: The Case For Uniform Global Identifiers And Compatible Reporting Requirements In Substituted Compliance Comparability Determinations, Kimberly R. Thomasson

Catholic University Law Review

The 2008 financial crisis prompted a global regulatory overhaul of over-the-counter derivative markets. The Dodd-Frank Act mandated the CFTC and SEC to issue new rules and regulations to bring the majority of the OTC derivative market out of the dark on onto regulated exchanges. Similar action was taken in the European Union and other G20 nations. There has been a push to harmonize rules for OTC derivatives across jurisdictions to make the market more efficient and eliminate regulatory arbitrage. This Comment focuses on the process for a regulated entity in the US and EU to “substitute compliance” with its home …

Investing And Pretending, Anita Krug

All Faculty Scholarship

One of the more prominent components of Dodd–Frank’s regulatory changes was Title VII, providing for the regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives known as “swaps.” A swap is a financial instrument whose value is based on an asset—the “reference asset”—that is wholly unrelated to the swap itself. Although there was much ado about swap regulation immediately after Dodd–Frank’s enactment, the same cannot be said of the many rules that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has subsequently adopted pursuant to its authority under Title VII. This Article critically evaluates the CFTC’s “swap rules” and identifies the regulatory vision that they reflect. …

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. Curran: Establishing An Implied Private Right Of Action Under The Commodity Exchange Act, Howard E. Hamann

Pepperdine Law Review

In the case of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, the United States Supreme Court held that there is an implied private right of action under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended. As a result of this holding, a private party may maintain an action for damages caused by a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. In this article, the author examines the Supreme Court's analysis and explores the future impact of the decision in light of the role the judiciary has in legislative matters.

Preference Determinations Concerning Bankruptcy Reform Act Of 1978 And Securities Act Of 1933, Securities And Exchange Act Of 1934, And Commodity Exchange Act, J. B. Grossman

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ernst & Ernst V. Hochfelder As Applied To Commodities Fraud: No Intent Required, Harry B. Borders

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Exchange-Trading Requirement Of The Commodity Exchange Act, William L. Stein

Vanderbilt Law Review

The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) makes it illegal to trade a contract for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery-a"futures contract"-unless the contract is executed on a federally designated exchange. Despite its long history of trouble-free administration and operation, this central premise of futures regulation recently has been attacked as unworkable and undesirable. Some argue that the requirement discourages commercially useful off-exchange transactions. They claim that even if such transactions fall within the letter of the requirement, off-exchange transactions do not implicate the trading restriction's policy concerns. In contrast, others suggest that off-exchange

transactions threaten the safety …

Discretionary Commodity Accounts: Why They Are Not Governed By The Federal Securities Laws, Kenneth M. Raisler, Whitney Adams, Maureen A. Donley-Hoopes

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fraud In Commodity Futures Trading--An Examination Of The Investor's Remedies, Lisa G. Demartini

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Note examines the various avenues of redress available to the defrauded commodity futures investor. Initially, an examination of two remedies expressly provided in the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)--reparations and arbitration--demonstrates their current inefficiencies and inadequacies. Next, the Note considers the possibility of recovery under the antifraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act and argues that such a cause of action should still be available when the investor can show that the particular discretionary trading account is a security." Finally, a discussion of an implied private right of action for violations of the antifraud provision of the CEA reveals much …

Commodity Market Manipulation, Philip Mcbride Johnson

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act: Preemption As Public Policy, Philip F. Johnson

Vanderbilt Law Review

On October 23, 1974, President Ford signed into law P.L. 93-463, bearing the breathless title "Commodity Futures Trading Com-mission Act of 1974"' [hereinafter the CFTC Act]. The CFTC Act followed a series of hearings, beginning in the summer of 1973, held first by a subcommittee of the House Committee on Small Business and followed rapidly by the more traditional oversight committees of the Congress-the House Agriculture Committee and the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee.' The result was a major over-haul of the Commodity Exchange Act, which had governed the commodity futures markets since 1922. More significantly, however,the Act has become …