Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explain the final rules adopted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on February 9 amending its Part 4 regulations governing commodity pool operators (CPOs) and commodity trading advisors (CTAs).

The paper explains, among other things, changes to CPO registration exemptions, additional reporting obligations for registered CPOs and CTAs, the imposition of new requirements for registered CPOs relying on certain exemptions, to provide annual financial statements, required risk disclosures regarding swap transactions, required annual affirmation and eligibility for exemptions and exclusions from CPO and CTA registration, and an initiative to harmonize CPO reporting, disclosure, and recordkeeping requirements of the CFTC and the SEC for registered investment companies.

Since the adoption of Rule 4.13(a)(4) in 2003, fund sponsors have frequently relied on the exemption made available by that rule to avoid both registration with the CFTC as CPOs and compliance with the CFTC's disclosure, reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The CFTC has now rescinded that exemption.

All advisers to registered investment companies need to evaluate their exposure to CFTC regulation after this rule amendment.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

The Indian commodity market requires large investments and enhanced trading activity both in the national as well as the regional commodity markets. The participation of non‐professional people trading commodity markets makes the market a risky venture. Non‐professional participants simply add to the volatility factor of the market. There is a dire need for professional experts who are able to provide advice on commodity trading and build commodity inclusive portfolios. Such professional awareness, expertise, and guidance in commodity trading can come from professional commodity traders called commodity trading advisors (CTAs). The purpose of this paper is to offer arguments and insights as to why the Indian commodity market needs the participation of the CTAs. The money brought in by CTA advised clients will add to the depth, liquidity, and trade which in turn will make commodity prices more efficient. As a regulatory measure, the Indian market too can adopt guidelines structured for CTAs by Commodity Future Trading Commission and National Futures Association. The CTAs can bring the Indian commodity market at par with developed commodity markets like Chicago Board of Trade.

The paper reviews and discusses the various issues related to CTAs applicability in India. The goal of the paper is to outline the need for allowing CTAs activity in Indian commodity market and discuses the key operational and policy considerations in developing the commodity market for CTAs in India.

The recent expansion of Indian commodity market has not been very structured. The market has expanded with the expansion in demand for commodities both in spot and derivative market. There have been constraints through policy restrictions and at the same time there has been an effort for liberalization of the commodity market to bring them at par with international commodity market. Of late, the Indian equity market has been very volatile. Participation of CTAs will provide much required downside protection to traditional portfolios and they will also provide the expertise in commodity derivative trading to participants and help build the commodity inclusive portfolios with better return and lesser risk.

This is the first paper that initiates thoughts on allowing CTAs to participate in the Indian commodity market. The paper builds on the concept that CTAs would add the desired price discovery, volume, and depth to the Indian commodity market. The Indian commodity market, despite being quite old, has recently broken free from the restrictive policies and has ushered into an era of initiates supporting commodity derivative market development. To the best of the authors' knowledge, there exists no literature on CTAs participation in India.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

The use of electronic media in the financial services industry is discussed in light of the regulatory framework in which the industry exists. The authors explore this issue in regards to both the securities and futures regulatory structure.

To explain the new Municipal Advisor Rule that will take effect on July 1, 2014, which regulates persons and firms that provide advice to municipal issuers and obligated parties regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities or that engage in certain solicitation of municipalities or obligors on behalf of third parties.

Explains who is treated as a Municipal Advisor, the standards applicable to Municipal Advisors, how the Rule may affect municipal securities issuers and obligated persons (collectively referred to as “Borrowers”) as well as other market participants, describes the exceptions and exemption s to the requirements of the Rule, and concludes with suggestions as to how Borrowers and other market participants may promote the flow of information.

The Rule will carry out a requirement of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that any party that provides advice to a Borrower regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities must register with the SEC and the MSRB as a Municipal Advisor, unless such party qualifies for an exception or exemption under the Rule. Practical Implications: The Rule will change how information flows in the municipal securities market. Some consequences of the Rule may disadvantage Borrowers and other market participants. The Rule may restrict the flow of information provided to Borrowers by participants in the municipal securities marketplace that are not Municipal Advisors.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

To discuss general legal considerations for non-US private equity sponsors who seek to market their funds to US institutional investors.

Explains relevant aspects of US securities laws, commodity exchange laws, pension and employee benefit plan laws, federal income tax laws, and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

The evolving US regulatory regime necessitates careful planning and thorough knowledge of relevant laws and regulations to effect a successful US marketing effort.

Practical guidance from experienced investment funds and tax lawyers.

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.

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).

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

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.

Practical explanation by experienced derivatives and securities lawyers.

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.

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.

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.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.