Search results

1 – 10 of 27
Article
Publication date: 26 August 2014

Walid Khuri, Robert M. McLauglin, David S. Mitchell and David W. Selden

To provide an overview of a new, streamlined process from the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by which…

Abstract

Purpose

To provide an overview of a new, streamlined process from the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by which a commodity pool operator (CPO) may request expedited no-action relief for failure to register under Section 4m(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act if such CPO has designated another, registered CPO to serve as the CPO of the commodity pool.

Design/methodology/approach

Explains the background to the CPO registration no-action relief related to CPO delegation and the streamlined process for requesting no-action relief, including the procedure for requesting relief and the applicable criteria that must be satisfied to utilize the streamlined process.

Findings

By providing an alternative, streamlined process for requesting no-action relief from CPO registration in the context of delegation arrangements in certain circumstances, the CFTC staff is attempting to facilitate obtaining such relief, particularly since relief may be sought on behalf of multiple commodity pools by means of a single request. However, the criteria that must be fulfilled in order to utilize the streamlined process are not necessarily applicable to all CPOs and in all scenarios. Thus, certain CPOs may need to request no-action relief outside of the new, streamlined process or consider alternative fund structures.

Originality/value

Practical guidance from experienced asset management lawyers.

Article
Publication date: 5 May 2015

Cary Meer and Lawrence B. Patent

To explain CFTC No-Action Letter 14-126, issued on October 15, 2014 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, which sets…

190

Abstract

Purpose

To explain CFTC No-Action Letter 14-126, issued on October 15, 2014 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, which sets forth a number of conditions with which a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) that delegates its CPO responsibilities (“Delegating CPO”) to a registered CPO (“Designated CPO”) must comply in order to take advantage of no-action relief from the requirement to register as a CPO.

Design/methodology/approach

Explains the modified conditions provided by Letter 14-126, including clarification of the permissible activities in which a Delegating CPO seeking to take advantage of registration no-action relief may engage regarding investment management, solicitation, and management of pool property; lists other criteria carried over from Letter 14-69 of May 12, 2014; provides analysis and discusses limitations of the relief provided by the CFTC No-Action letter.

Findings

The letter makes more liberal several of the conditions set forth in CFTC Letter 14-69 of May 12, 2014, with which many Delegating CPOs could not comply.

Originality/value

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Article
Publication date: 27 February 2014

Daphne G. Frydman and Raymond A. Ramirez

To explain regulatory developments and changes to compliance obligations for asset managers registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as commodity pool

Abstract

Purpose

To explain regulatory developments and changes to compliance obligations for asset managers registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as commodity pool operators of registered investment companies.

Design/methodology/approach

Provides a general overview of new CFTC rules (Harmonization Rules) that afford relief to commodity pool operators of commodity pools that are registered as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940; describes the specific CFTC disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that remain applicable to commodity pool operators that are also subject to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation by virtue of operating commodity pools that are registered investment companies; discusses reliance on substituted compliance with applicable SEC requirements; outlines the method for claiming relief under the Harmonization Rules; provides guidance for CPOs of RICs that use controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).

Findings

CPOs of RICs benefit from “substituted compliance” under the CFTC Harmonization Rules.

Practical implications

Explains to investment advisers that have registered as CPOs of RICs the disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping obligations that apply to them, how to take advantage of compliance with SEC requirements in lieu of CFTC requirements, and how to claim relief with respect to certain CFTC compliance obligations.

Originality/value

Practical explanation by experienced derivatives and securities lawyers.

Article
Publication date: 1 April 1996

M. HOLLAND WEST and DIANE M. DICKENSHEID

This paper first generally describes the requirements under US federal law to register as a commodity pool operator (CPO), and the disclosure, reporting and record keeping…

Abstract

This paper first generally describes the requirements under US federal law to register as a commodity pool operator (CPO), and the disclosure, reporting and record keeping obligations which normally apply to registered CPOs. It then discusses in detail two particular sources of relief from certain of these disclosure, reporting and record keeping obligations — an Advisory issued by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on 11th April, 1996, and CFTC Rule 4.7 — and compares the requirements to qualify for, and relief available under, the Advisory and CFTC Rule 4.7.

Details

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, vol. 4 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1358-1988

Article
Publication date: 8 June 2012

Peter J. Shea, Kathleen H. Moriarty, Kenneth M. Rosenzweig, Marybeth Sorady and Gregory E. Xethalis

The purpose of this article is to explain the implications for registered fund advisors of the February 9, 2012 final amendments the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC…

126

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to explain the implications for registered fund advisors of the February 9, 2012 final amendments the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) made to its Rule 4.5 exemption from commodity pool operator (CPO) registration for registered funds.

Design/methodology/approach

This article explains how amended Rule 4.5 will be applied to advisors and sub‐advisors of registered investment companies and the managers of foreign corporations controlled by registered investment companies. The article also describes the expected impact of the CPO compliance regime under a proposed harmonization of CFTC CPO regulation with Securities and Exchange Commission regulation of registered fund advisers.

Practical implications

All registered fund advisers should conduct a review of each of their registered funds' portfolios, investment strategies and marketing materials to evaluate their status as CPOs by the compliance deadline. Advisers who cannot comply with the amended Rule 4.5 by the compliance deadline should prepare for CPO registration.

Originality/value

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 13 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 8 June 2012

James M. Cain, Daphne G. Frydman, David Roby, Michael Koffler and Raymond A. Ramirez

The purpose of this paper is to explain legislative and regulatory changes and related developments that will be of interest to hedge funds and other private funds as they…

224

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explain legislative and regulatory changes and related developments that will be of interest to hedge funds and other private funds as they traverse the shifting regulatory landscape in 2012.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper provides a general overview of the new regulatory regime that the Dodd‐Frank Act imposes on over‐the‐counter (OTC) derivatives; describes the rescission of a regulatory exclusion from the commodity pool operator (CPO) definition that was previously available to registered investment companies and the repeal of an exemption from CPO registration requirements for operators of funds whose shares are exempt from registration under the Securities Act of 1933; discusses proposed changes to CPO and commodity trading advisor (CTA) compliance requirements; discusses Dodd‐Frank Act changes to existing securities laws and regulations, including with respect to large trader reporting and investment advisers; highlights some of the concerns raised by MF Global, Inc.’s collapse; and describes recent tax law developments.

Findings

The paper reveals that the Dodd‐Frank Act significantly alters the space within which hedge funds and other private funds currently operate.

Practical implications

Whereas the majority of the regulations to implement the Dodd‐Frank Act have yet to become effective, federal regulators are working diligently to implement their mandates and hedge funds and other private funds should begin preparing to comply with the new Dodd‐Frank Act requirements now.

Originality/value

The paper provides expert guidance by experienced securities, derivatives and tax lawyers.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 13 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 26 April 2013

Kerry Burke, Julian Hammar, Lisa Koff, Loretta Shaw‐Lorello, Amanda Weiss and Kristian Wiggert

The alert endeavors to clarify the current state of play regarding the registration requirements for commodity pool operators (CPOs) and to discuss certain exemptions from…

Abstract

Purpose

The alert endeavors to clarify the current state of play regarding the registration requirements for commodity pool operators (CPOs) and to discuss certain exemptions from registration and no‐action relief that may be applicable to sponsors of private funds.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors' approach is focused on the practical steps a fund sponsor may need to take to claim an exemption from the CPO registration requirements. The authors obtained the research from publicly available CFTC sources.

Findings

Although many private equity funds may be exempt from the CPO registration requirements, many of the CFTC's exemptions are not self‐executing and necessitate ongoing action by the fund sponsor.

Practical implications

Before entering into any swaps, a sponsor of a private fund should consider whether the swap transaction will impact any exemptive relief currently claimed by the sponsor and whether any further CFTC action is required as a result of such transaction.

Originality/value

The article should provide a roadmap of the possible exemptions from CPO registration for sponsors of private funds.

Article
Publication date: 3 July 2017

J.P. Bruynes, Jason Daniel and Libbie Walker

To explain the final position limit aggregation rules and exemptions pertaining to derivative positions in nine agricultural commodities adopted by the Commodity Futures Trading…

162

Abstract

Purpose

To explain the final position limit aggregation rules and exemptions pertaining to derivative positions in nine agricultural commodities adopted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on December 5, 2016 and effective February 14, 2017, the notice filing deadline with respect to which was extended by the CFTC by limited time no-action relief until August 14, 2017.

Design/methodology/approach

Explains the position limit aggregation rules and exemptions pertaining to equity interests in owned entities, ownership or equity interests in pooled accounts or positions, positions of an “eligible entity” in connection with client positions carried by an “independent account controller,” positions held by futures commission merchants (FCMs) in discretionary accounts or customer trading program accounts, equity interests of underwriters based on unsold allotments of securities in distributions, broker-dealers if the equity interest is acquired in the normal course of business and positions for which information cannot be collected without risk of violating a law.

Findings

Unless an exemption from aggregation is available, all positions in accounts for which any person controls the trading or holds a 10 per cent or greater ownership or equity interest must be aggregated with positions held, and trading done, by such person. The final rule adds several new exemptions, including for persons with a 10 per cent or greater ownership or equity interest in an entity so long as certain conditions establishing independence are met. The final rule requires notice filing to take advantage of most exemptions from aggregation.

Originality/value

Practical guidance from experienced lawyers specializing in securities, funds, and investment management.

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 18 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Keywords

Content available
Article
Publication date: 26 August 2014

Henry Davis

72

Abstract

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 15 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

Content available
Article
Publication date: 8 June 2012

Henry A. Davis

104

Abstract

Details

Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 13 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1528-5812

1 – 10 of 27