CEA Section 2(e) makes it unlawful for any person other than an ECP to enter into a swap, unless the swap is entered into on, or subject to the requirements of, a board of trade designated as a contract market under 7 U.S.C. § 7. See 7 U.S.C. § 2(e). The CEA and CFTC regulations require that certain types of swaps be submitted for clearing.

5 7 U.S.C. §1a(9).6 7 U.S.C. §1a(47).7 7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(D).8 7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(C).

[2] Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).[3] 7 U.S.C. 2(i). The CFTC asserts that Section 2(i)’s terms require that the CFTC find that swaps in the aggregate, and not individually, have a “direct and significant” effect on commerce, citing Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

ns of Conflict with SEC Over Prometheum's ETH Play," CoinTelegraph (Mar. 6, 2024), available at: https://cointelegraph.com/news/cftc-rostin-behnam-warns-conflict-sec-prometheum-eth-custody. 15 U.S.C. § 78f(g) ("An exchange that lists or trades security futures products may register as a national securities exchange solely for the purpose of trading security futures products if – (A) the exchange is a board of trade, as that erm is defined by the Commodity Exchange Act . . ., that has been designated a contract market by the [CFTC] . . ."). Both FINRA and NFA have continuing education requirements for persons who offer and sell security futures and their supervisors. See FINRA, "Security Futures," (last accessed Mar. 3, 2024), available at: https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/security-futures. In addition, FINRA and NFA worked together to create a uniform security futures risk disclosure statement that must be given to customers approved for trading in security futures. Id. 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(I); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78f(h)(3)(A). 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(D)(i)(III); see also 15 U.S.C. § 78f(h)(D). 17 C.F.R. § 41.21(a). The SEC separately provides that an NSE or a national securities association "may trade only security futures products that (A) conform with listing standards that such [NSE] or association files with the [SEC] under [15 U.S.C. § 78s(b)] and (B) meet the criteria specified in section 2(a)(1)(D)(i) of the CEA." 15 U.S.C. § 78f(h)(3).See 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(D)(v)(I); 15 U.S.C. § 78f(h)(4). "Joint Final Rules: Application of the Definition of Narrow-Based Security Index to Debt Securities Indexes and Security Futures on Debt Securities," 71 Federal Register 39,534 (July 13, 2006). "Joint Order Modifying the Listing Standards Under Section 6(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Criteria Under Section 2(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act," 74 Federal Register 61,380 (Nov. 24, 2009). CFTC, "Security Futures Product," (last accessed Mar. 11, 2024), available a

While market participants may welcome many of the principals and recommendations set forth in the White Paper, it remains to be seen to what extent these will influence future CFTC rulemakings.9 CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo, "Cross Border Swaps Regulation Version 2.0: A Risk-Based Approach with Deference to Comparable Non-US Regulation", available here.10 This White Paper assessed the successes and deficiencies of the CFTC's implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act in five areas: central counterparty clearing, trade reporting, trade execution, swap dealer capital and the end-user exception.11 Section 2(i), Commodity Exchange Act (7 USC § 2(i)).12 Interpretive Guidance and Policy Statement Regarding Compliance with Certain Swap Regulations, 78 FR 45291 (July 26, 2013), available here.13 CFTC Staff Advisory No. 13-69 (November 14, 2013), available here.14 CFTC No-Action Letter 13-71 (granting relief to January 14, 2014), CFTC No-Action Letter 14-01 (extending relief to September 15, 2014), CFTC No-Action Letter 14-74 (extending relief to December 31, 2014), CFTC No-Action Letter 14-140 (extending relief to September 30, 2015), CFTC No-Action Letter 15-48 (extending relief to September 30, 2016), CFTC No-Action Letter 16-64 (extending relief to the earlier of September 30, 2017 or the effective date of any corresponding CFTC action) and CFTC No-Action Letter 17-36 (extending relief to the effective date of any corresponding CFTC action). CFTC No-Action Letter 17-36, available here.15 Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants—Cross-Border Application of the Margin Requirements, 81 FR

The PR Margin Exemptions will become effective on October 1, 2016.5See 7 U.S.C. § 2(h) (2012). For additional information regarding the CFTC’s clearing requirement and end-user exception (initially adopted in Part 39 of the CFTC regulations but subsequently restated as Part 50 of the CFTC’s regulations), see August 15, 2012, Skadden client alert “CFTC Takes Steps to Implement the Clearing Regime for Swaps and Finalizes the Exception From Clearing for Commercial End-Users.”

See CFTC No-Action Letter No. 12-48 (December 11, 2012), available here; CFTC No-Action Letter No. 13-28 (June 17, 2013), available here. 5 7 U.S.C. § 2(h)(8). The first determination is expected to cover swaps that are subject to the first mandatory clearing determination – selected interest rate swaps and index credit default swaps.

The 2011 Dodd-Frank Act amended the CFTC’s jurisdiction to authorize regulation of“retail commodity transactions offered ‘on a leveraged or margined basis, or financed by the offeror, the counterparty, or a person acting in concert with the offeror or counterparty on a similar basis.’ Dodd-Frank [Publ. L. No. 111-203] § 742, 124 Stat. [1376] at 1732-33 (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2(c)(2)(D)[(i)]).”CFTC v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC,749 F. 3d 967, 970 (11th Cir. 2014). But that expanded jurisdiction is subject to an exception for“a contract of sale that results in actual delivery within 28 days or such other longer period as the Commission may determine by rule or regulation based upon the typical commercial practice in cash or spot markets for the commodity involved.”

Moreover, the provision of law cited by the Commission to support the requirement that commissioners must be able to issue dissents, concurrences or separate opinions in connection with official publications issued by the Commission only applies to Commission opinions related to budget requests and legislative recommendations to congressional committees. (Click here to access the relevant provision of law, Commodity Exchange Act § 2(a)(10)(C), 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(10)(C).)The defendants also earlier argued that, prior to finalizing the settlement order, one CFTC official told the defendants that two commissioners objected to inclusion of a gag order binding on the Commission and asked for its removal.

L. No. 111-203] §742, 124 Stat. [1376] at 1732-33 (codified at 7 U.S.C. §2(c)(2)(D)[(i)]).”CFTC v. Hunter Wise Commodities, LLC, 749 F. 3d 967, 970 (11th Cir. 2014).