Search This Blog


This is a photo of the National Register of Historic Places listing with reference number 7000063

Saturday, June 18, 2011

FORMER GALLEON MANAGER SETTLES INSIDER TRADING CHARGES



The case below is an excerpt from the SEC web site:
June 17, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that, on May 31, 2011, The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a judgment against Adam Smith in SEC v. Adam Smith, 11-CV-0535, an insider trading case the SEC filed on January 26, 2011.
The Complaint alleged that Smith, a former portfolio manager at New York-based hedge fund investment adviser Galleon Management, LP, traded in the securities of ATI Technologies Inc., based on material nonpublic information concerning the acquisition of ATI by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. that was announced in July 2006. Prior to the announcement, Smith learned of the acquisition from an investment banker, who had received such information while serving as an employee of an investment bank that was advising one of the parties to the acquisition.
To settle the SEC’s charges, Smith consented to the entry of a judgment that: (i) permanently enjoins him from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and (ii) orders him to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest, for a total of $149,706.25. The judgment further provides that, based on his agreement to cooperate with the Commission, the Court is not ordering Smith to pay a civil penalty. In a related SEC administrative proceeding, Smith consented to the entry of an SEC order barring him from association with any investment adviser, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent. Smith previously pleaded guilty to charges of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud in a related criminal case, United States v. Adam Smith, 1:11-cr-00079 (S.D.N.Y.), and is awaiting sentencing.”

COURT ORDERS FOUNDING PARTNERS CAPITAL EXEC. TO PAY 31 MILLION FOR FRAUD

The following is an excerpt from the SEC web site:
“The Commission announced that on June 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, upon Motion of the Commission, has issued an Order and Opinion Setting Disgorgement and Prejudgment Interest Amounts and Imposing a Civil Penalty against Defendant William L. Gunlicks. A supplemental final judgment was issued on June 15, 2011 ordering Gunlicks to pay disgorgement in the amount of $28,635,966.55 representing the ill-gotten gains received, pre-judgment interest in the amount of $2,193,842.31, and a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000,000.00.
The Complaint filed by the Commission against Gunlicks and Founding Partners Capital Management, Co. on April 20, 2009 alleged violation of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. On March 3, 2010 an Order of Permanent Injunction by Consent was entered against Gunlicks, enjoining him from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-8 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of implementing the payment terms of the judgment.”

Friday, June 17, 2011

FORMER BOARD CHAIRMAN OF FIRST CASH FINANCIAL SERVICES CHARGED WITH INSIDER TRADING

Filed June 10, 2011

Securities insider trading is possibly the most heinous crime someone can commit against honest investors. Many would argue that Ponzi schemes are worse for the market. However, Ponzi crimes are often perpetrated upon people who do not have the technical skills to examine an investment using both mathematics along with the prerequisite skill do be able to look at a situation and realize something must be wrong in order to generate large rates of returns. Insider trading offers no clues at all to even the most astute investor before money is committed and lost since only the insider has the necessary information to make the right call and when that insider makes that right call then all the most technically oriented and sophisticated investors may well pay the price and then declare openly that “the U.S. securities market is rigged”. Thus, not only are the trading markets seen as being compromised and fixed but, the entire capitalist system is then seen as corrupt and without any redemptive remedies.

In the following case, the SEC has alleged that the former chairman of the board of First Cash Financial Services, Inc. engaged in insider trading. Below is an excerpt from the SEC website:


The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Phillip E. (Rick) Powell, former chairman of the board of First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (“First Cash”), with illegal insider trading. The SEC’s Complaint, filed in United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), alleges that in early March 2008 Powell, while he was serving as the chairman of the board of First Cash, learned material, non-public information about the commencement of a company share buyback.
According to the Complaint, on November 6, 2007, the company had announced that it had authorized a buyback of up to 1 million First Cash shares. That announcement did not disclose when the authority would be exercised or even whether management would actually exercise the authority. The SEC alleges that Powell, through his position as chairman of First Cash’s board of directors, later learned, among other things, that First Cash had decided to actually exercise its repurchase authority and was set to begin the repurchase.
According to the Complaint, Powell, armed with this material, non-public information, called his broker on March 11, the same day that First Cash entered into an agreement with JP Morgan Securities to facilitate the repurchase and the day before First Cash began repurchasing its shares. He instructed the broker to buy 100,000 First Cash shares. According to the SEC’s Complaint, Powell insisted that the purchase needed to be made that day.
As alleged in the Complaint, Powell’s pre-buyback purchases caused First Cash to overpay $36,000 for its own securities between March 12 and March 14, 2008. In addition, the SEC alleges that, as a result of the share price increase following disclosure that the buyback had commenced, Powell profited in the amount of $124,000 from his illegal purchase.
Powell is alleged to have repeatedly tried to hide his trading from First Cash and its shareholders. For example, the Complaint alleges that he misled another board member when he was warned against purchasing in advance of the buyback, and later he misled First Cash’s chief executive officer when he asked about the trade. In addition, after his broker warned him that Commission rules required him to file a Form 4 disclosing his trade, he refused to do so and delayed filing his Form 4 until April 30, 2009, over thirteen months after it was required by Commission rules and only after he knew the Commission was investigating his trades.
The SEC’s complaint alleges that, as a result of his conduct, Powell violated Sections 10(b) and 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 16a-3 thereunder. The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement of illicit profits with prejudgment interest, a monetary penalty, and an order barring Powell from serving as an officer or director of a public company.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

Thursday, June 16, 2011

SEC INSTITUTES STOP ORDER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TWO COMPANIES

The SEC has an important role in making sure that traded securities are issued by companies that have made correct statements about themselves. Incorrect statements maybe misleading to the public and hence, cause people to invest in a business without the relevant facts. The following is an excerpt from the SEC website:

Washington, D.C., June 13, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that it has instituted proceedings to determine whether stop orders should be issued suspending the effectiveness of registration statements filed by two companies – China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics Inc. (CIL) and China Century Dragon Media Inc. (CDM).
The SEC instituted the stop order proceedings against each company after the companies’ independent auditor resigned and withdrew its audit opinions on the financial statements included in the companies’ registration statements.

“The Division of Enforcement is seeking stop orders to protect investors by preventing any further sales under materially misleading and deficient offering documents,” said Kara Brockmeyer, Assistant Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and co-head of the Cross Border Working Group. The Cross Border Working Group has representatives from each of the SEC’s major divisions and offices, and focuses on U.S. companies with substantial foreign operations.
The purpose of a stop order is to prevent a company or its selling shareholders from selling their privately-held shares to the public under a registration statement that is materially misleading or deficient. If a stop order is issued, no new shares can enter the market pursuant to that registration statement until the company has corrected the deficiencies or misleading information in the prospectus.
In proceedings instituted against CIL on June 10, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that CIL’s independent auditor resigned on March 24, 2011, due to accounting fraud at the company involving forged accounting records and bank statements. The auditor also notified the company that it could no longer support its audit opinions relating to the company’s previously-issued financial statements – which were included in registration statements filed by CIL in June and December 2010 – and that the financial statements contained in the registration statements cannot be relied upon. The Division of Enforcement alleges that, as a result, CIL’s registration statements are materially misleading and deficient.
In separate proceedings instituted against CDM on June 13, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement alleges that CDM’s independent auditor resigned on March 22, 2011, due to “discrepancies noted on customer confirmations and the auditor’s inability to directly verify the Company’s bank records,” which could indicate a material error in the company’s previously-issued financial statements. The auditor also notified the company that it could no longer support its audit opinions relating to the company’s previously-issued financial statements, which were included in a registration statement filed by CDM in February 2011, and that those financial statements cannot be relied upon. The Division of Enforcement alleges that, as a result, CDM’s registration statement is materially misleading and deficient.
The Commission instituted the proceedings against CIL and CDM, respectively, pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Securities Act of 1933 to determine whether the allegations of the Division of Enforcement are true, to afford each company an opportunity to establish any defenses to these allegations, and to determine whether in each case a stop order should be issued suspending the effectiveness of the registration statement or statements.
Trading in the companies’ stock on the NYSE Amex LLC has been halted since March 2011, pending the outcome of Amex’s delisting proceedings against each company for failure to meet Amex’s listings requirements.”

SEC GOES AFTER THE UNKNOWN

Because any sane criminal would want to remain anonymous, sometimes those seeking justice do not know who their adversaries might be. In the following case taken from the SEC website, the SEC goes after such unknown potential criminal(s) by getting a court to freeze the assets of said potential criminal(s):

"Securities and Exchange Commission v. One or More Unknown Purchasers of Securities of Telvent GIT S.A., 11 Civ. 3794 (TPG) (S.D.N.Y.) (filed June 3, 2011)
Court Freezes Assets Linked to Suspicious Securities Purchases Ahead of Telvent GIT S.A. Acquisition Announcement
On June 3, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Temporary Restraining Order freezing assets and trading proceeds of certain unknown purchasers of the securities of Telvent GIT S.A. (the “Unknown Purchasers”). The Commission filed a complaint alleging that the Unknown Purchasers engaged in illegal insider trading in the days preceding the June 1, 2011 announcement that Schneider Electric S.A., a French company, and Telvent, a company based in Madrid, Spain, had entered into an agreement under which Schneider would offer to acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Telvent at a price of $40 per share, a 16% premium over the previous day’s closing price. The Commission’s complaint alleges that the Unknown Purchasers, through their insider trading, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, the disgorgement of all illegal profits, and the imposition of civil money penalties.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that between April 29, 2011 and May 27, 2011, the Unknown Purchasers bought 1,200 Telvent call option contracts through an account at Pershing LLC. About two-thirds of the call option contracts were purchased within five calendar days (or two trading days) before the acquisition announcement and comprised as much as 52% of the volume of that series of call options that day. The price of the call options held by the Unknown Purchasers rose dramatically. In one instance, the price of the options increased by about 480%. The complaint alleges that, as a result, the Unknown Purchasers realized total profits of approximately $475,000 from the sale of the call options.

In addition to freezing the assets relating to the trading, the Temporary Restraining Order requires the Unknown Purchasers to identify themselves, imposes an expedited discovery schedule, and prohibits the defendants from destroying documents."

CFTC CHAIRMAN SAYS SWAPS MARKET PLAYED CENTRAL ROLE IN FINANCIAL CRISIS

The following remarks were made by CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler to the House Committee on Financial Services. The remarks are an excerpt from the CFTC website:

June 16, 2011
Good morning Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Frank and members of the Committee. I thank you for inviting me to today’s hearing on the international context of financial regulatory reform. I also thank my fellow Commissioners and CFTC staff for their hard work and commitment on implementing the legislation.
I am pleased to testify alongside my fellow regulators.
Global Crisis
It has now been more than two years since the financial crisis, when both the financial system and the financial regulatory system failed. So many people – not just in the United States, but throughout the world – who never had any connection to derivatives or exotic financial contracts had their lives hurt by the risks taken by financial actors. The effects of the crisis remain. All over the world, we still have high unemployment, homes that are worth less than their mortgages and pension funds that have not regained the value they had before the crisis. We still have significant uncertainty in the financial system.
Though the crisis had many causes, it is clear that the swaps market played a central role. Swaps added leverage to the financial system with more risk being backed up by less capital. They contributed, particularly through credit default swaps, to the bubble in the housing market and helped to accelerate the financial crisis. They contributed to a system where large financial institutions were thought to be not only too big to fail, but too interconnected to fail. Swaps – initially developed to help manage and lower risk – actually concentrated and heightened risk in the economy and to the public.
At the conclusion of the September 2009 G-20 summit held in Pittsburgh, leaders of 19 nations and the European Union concurred that “[a]ll standardized OTC derivative contracts should be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate, and cleared through central counterparties by end-2012 at the latest. OTC derivative contracts should be reported to trade repositories. Non-centrally cleared contracts should be subject to higher capital requirements.”
We now are working across borders to achieve that goal.
Derivatives Markets
Each part of our nation’s economy relies on a well-functioning derivatives marketplace. The derivatives market – including both the historically regulated futures market and the heretofore unregulated swaps market – is essential so that producers, merchants and other end-users can manage their risks and lock in prices for the future. Derivatives help these entities focus on what they know best – innovation, investment and producing goods and services – while finding others in a marketplace willing to bear the uncertain risks of changes in prices or rates.
With notional values of approximately $300 trillion in the United States – that’s more than $20 of swaps for every dollar of goods and services produced in the U.S. economy – and approximately $600 trillion worldwide, derivatives markets must work for the benefit of the public. Members of the public keep their savings with banks and pension funds that use swaps to manage their interest rate risks. The public buys gasoline and groceries from companies that rely upon futures and swaps to hedge their commodity price risks.
That’s why international oversight must ensure that these markets function with integrity, transparency, openness and competition, free from fraud, manipulation and other abuses. Though the CFTC is not a price-setting agency, recent volatility in prices for basic commodities – agricultural and energy – are very real reminders of the need for common sense rules in the derivatives markets.
International Coordination
To address changes in the derivatives markets as well as the real weaknesses in swaps market oversight exposed by the financial crisis, the CFTC is working to implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s derivatives oversight reforms. Our international counterparts also are working to implement reform.
Japan has acted and is now working to implement its reforms. In September of last year, the European Commission (E.C.) released its swaps proposal. The European Council and the European Parliament are now considering the proposal. Asian nations, as well as Canada, also are working on their reform packages.
As we work to implement the derivatives reforms in the Dodd-Frank Act, we are actively coordinating with international regulators to promote robust and consistent standards and avoid conflicting requirements in swaps oversight. The Commission participates in numerous international working groups regarding swaps, including the International Organization of Securities Commissions Task Force on OTC Derivatives, which the CFTC co-chairs with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The CFTC, SEC, European Commission and European Securities Market Authority are intensifying discussions through a technical working group.
As we do with domestic regulators, we are sharing many of our memos, term sheets and draft work product with international regulators. We have been consulting directly and sharing documentation with the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the UK Financial Services Authority, the new European Securities and Markets Authority, the Japanese Financial Services authority and regulators in Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland. Two weeks ago, I met with Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, to discuss ensuring consistency in swaps market regulation.
The Dodd-Frank Act recognizes that the swaps market is global and interconnected. It gives the CFTC the flexibility to recognize foreign regulatory frameworks that are comprehensive and comparable to U.S. oversight of the swaps markets in certain areas. In addition, we have a long history of recognition regarding foreign participants that are comparably regulated by a home country regulator. The CFTC enters into arrangements with our international counterparts for access to information and cooperative oversight. We have signed memoranda of understanding with regulators in Europe, North America and Asia.
Furthermore, Section 722(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act states that the provisions of the Act relating to swaps shall not apply to activities outside the U.S. unless those activities have “a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce” of the U.S. We are developing a plan for application of 722(d) and expect to receive public input on that plan.
I will highlight a few broad areas where both regulators in the U.S. and regulators abroad are implementing swaps oversight reform.
Broadening the Scope
Foremost, the Dodd-Frank Act broadened the scope of oversight. The CFTC and the SEC will, for the first time, have oversight of the swaps and security-based swaps markets. The CFTC’s remit is growing from a marketplace that has a notional value of approximately $40 trillion to one with a notional value of approximately $300 trillion.
Similar to the Dodd-Frank Act, the European Commission’s proposal covers the entire product suite, including interest rate swaps, currency swaps, commodity swaps, equity swaps and credit default swaps. It is important that all standardized swaps are subject to mandatory central clearing. We are working with our counterparts in Europe to make sure that all swaps, whether bilateral or traded on platforms, are subject to such mandatory clearing.
Centralized Clearing
Another key reform of the Dodd-Frank Act is to lower interconnectedness in the swaps markets by requiring standardized swaps between financial institutions to be brought to central clearing. This interconnectedness was, in part, the reason for the $180 billion bailout of AIG.
Clearing is another area where the Dodd-Frank Act and the E.C.’s proposal generally are consistent. In both cases, financial entities, such as swap dealers, hedge funds and insurance companies, will be required to use clearinghouses when entering into standardized swap transactions with other financial entities. Non-financial end-users that are using swaps to hedge or mitigate commercial risk, however, will be able to choose whether or not to bring their swaps to clearinghouses.
Capital and Margin
The Dodd-Frank Act includes both capital and margin requirements for swap dealers to lower risk to the economy. Capital requirements, usually computed quarterly, help protect the public by lowering the risk of a dealer’s failure. Margin requirements, usually paid daily, help protect dealers and their counterparties in volatile markets or if either of them defaults. Both are important tools to lower risk in the swaps markets.
The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes bank regulators, the CFTC and the SEC to set both capital and margin “to offset the greater risk to the swap dealer or major swap participant and the financial system arising from the use of swaps that are not cleared.”
In Europe, Basel III includes capital requirements for swap dealers. The E.C.’s swaps proposal includes margin requirements for uncleared swaps to lower the risk that a dealer’s failure could cascade through its counterparties.
Data Reporting
The Dodd-Frank Act includes robust recordkeeping and reporting requirements for all swaps transactions. It is important that all swaps – both on-exchange and off – be reported to data repositories so that regulators can have a window into the risks posed in the system and can police the markets for fraud, manipulation and other abuses.
There is broad international consensus on the need for data reporting on swaps transactions. The E.C. proposal includes similar requirements to the Dodd-Frank Act’s requirements. Regulators in Japan, Hong Kong and China also have indicated the need for reporting of swaps data.
Business Conduct Standards
The Dodd-Frank Act explicitly authorizes regulators to write business conduct standards to lower risk and promote market integrity. The E.C. proposal addresses similar protections through what it calls “risk mitigation techniques.” This includes documentation, confirmation and portfolio reconciliation requirements, which are important features to lower risk. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act provides regulators with authority to write business conduct rules to protect against fraud, manipulation and other abuses.
Promoting Transparency
In the U.S., the Dodd-Frank Act brings transparency to the derivatives marketplace. Economists and policymakers for decades have recognized that market transparency benefits the public.
The more transparent a marketplace is, the more liquid it is, the more competitive it is and the lower the costs for hedgers, borrowers and their customers.
The Dodd-Frank Act brings transparency in each of the three phases of a transaction.
First, it brings pre-trade transparency by requiring standardized swaps – those that are cleared, made available for trading and not blocks – to be traded on exchanges or swap execution facilities.
Second, it brings real-time post-trade transparency to the swaps markets. This provides all market participants with important pricing information as they consider their investments and whether to lower their risk through similar transactions.
Third, it brings transparency to swaps over the lifetime of the contracts. If the contract is cleared, the clearinghouse will be required to publicly disclose the pricing of the swap. If the contract is bilateral, swap dealers will be required to share mid-market pricing with their counterparties.
The Dodd-Frank Act also includes robust recordkeeping and reporting requirements for all swaps transactions so that regulators can have a window into the risks posed in the system and can police the markets for fraud, manipulation and other abuses.
In Europe, the E.C. is considering revisions to its existing Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), which includes a trade execution requirement and the creation of a report with aggregate data on the markets similar to the CFTC’s Commitments of Traders reports.
Furthermore, in February 2011, IOSCO issued a report on trading that included eight characteristics that trading platforms should have. Many of the IOSCO members participating in the report indicated a belief that added benefits are achieved through multi-dealer trading platforms. The IOSCO report concluded that, beyond the added benefits of pre-trade transparency, trading helps mitigate systemic risk and protect against market abuse.
Japan’s swaps reform promotes transparency through mandated post-trade reporting to a trade repository. Hong Kong is examining exchange-trading and electronic platform requirements as it pursues derivatives reform. China intends to mandate electronic trading of RMB FX forwards, RMB forward swaps and RMB currency swaps on trading platforms by the end of 2012.
Foreign Boards of Trade
The Dodd-Frank Act broadened the CFTC’s oversight to include authority to register foreign boards of trade (FBOTs) providing direct access to U.S. traders. To become registered, FBOTs must be subject to regulatory oversight that is comprehensive and comparable to U.S. oversight. This new authority enhances the Commission's ability to ensure that U.S. traders cannot avoid essential market protections by trading contracts on FBOTs that are linked with U.S. contracts.
Access to Data
The Dodd-Frank Act includes a provision that generally requires domestic and foreign authorities, in certain circumstances, to provide written agreements to indemnify SEC- and CFTC-registered trade repositories, as well as the SEC and CFTC, for certain litigation expenses as a condition to obtaining data directly from the trade repository regarding swaps and security-based swaps. In addition, the trade repository must notify the SEC or CFTC upon receipt of an information request from a domestic or foreign authority.
After having consulted with staff, SEC Chairman Shapiro and I wrote to European Commissioner Barnier to indicate our belief that the indemnification and notice requirements need not apply to requests for information from foreign regulators in at least two circumstances.
First, the indemnification and notice requirements need not apply when a trade repository is registered with the SEC or CFTC, is registered in a foreign jurisdiction and the foreign regulator, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction, seeks information directly from the trade repository. In such dual-registration cases, we acknowledged our belief that the Dodd-Frank Act's indemnification and notice requirements need not apply, provided that applicable statutory confidentiality provisions are met. Our staff is considering this, along with other recommendations, as it prepares final rules for the Commissions' consideration.
Second, as indicated in the SEC's and CFTC's proposed rules regarding trade repositories' duties and core principles, foreign regulators would not be subject to the indemnification and notice requirements if they obtain information that is in the possession of the SEC or CFTC. The SEC and CFTC have statutory authority to share such information with domestic and foreign counterparts and have made extensive use of this authority in the past to share information with our counterparts around the world. Furthermore, separate statutory authority exists to allow the SEC and CFTC to obtain information from a trade repository on behalf of a foreign regulator if that foreign regulator is investigating a possible violation of foreign law.
I anticipate that the CFTC staff will make additional recommendations for the Commission’s consideration to facilitate regulators’ access to information necessary for regulatory, supervisory and enforcement purposes.
Rule-Writing Process
The CFTC is working deliberatively, efficiently and transparently to write rules to implement the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission on Tuesday scheduled public meetings in July, August and September to begin considering final rules under Dodd-Frank. We envision having more meetings throughout the fall to take up final rules.

The Dodd-Frank Act has a deadline of 360 days after enactment for completion of the bulk of our rulemakings – July 16, 2011. The Dodd-Frank Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) give the CFTC the flexibility and authority to address the issues relating to the effective dates of Title VII. We are coordinating closely with the SEC on these issues.
The Dodd-Frank Act made many significant changes to the CEA. Section 754 of the Dodd-Frank Act states that Subtitle A of Title VII – the Subtitle that provides for the regulation of swaps – “shall take effect on the later of 360 days after the date of the enactment of this subtitle or, to the extent a provision of this subtitle requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provisions of this subtitle.”

Thus, those provisions that require rulemakings will not go into effect until the CFTC finalizes the respective rules. Furthermore, they will only go into effect based on the phased implementation dates included in the final rules. During Tuesday’s public Commission meeting, the CFTC released a list of the provisions of the swaps subtitle that require rulemakings.
Unless otherwise provided, those provisions of Title VII that do not require rulemaking will take effect on July 16. The Commission on Tuesday voted to issue a proposed order that would provide relief until December 31, 2011, or when the definitional rulemakings become effective, whichever is sooner, from certain provisions that would otherwise apply to swaps or swap dealers on July 16. This includes provisions that do not directly rely on a rule to be promulgated, but do refer to terms that must be further defined by the CFTC and SEC, such as “swap” and “swap dealer.”
The order proposed by the Commission also would provide relief through no later than December 31, 2011, from certain CEA requirements that may result from the repeal, effective on July 16, 2011, of some of sections 2(d), 2(e), 2(g), 2(h) and 5d.
The proposed order will be open for public comment for 14 days after it is published in the Federal Register. We intend to finalize an order regarding relief from the relevant Dodd-Frank provisions before July 16, 2011.
Conclusion
Though two years have passed, we cannot forget that the 2008 financial crisis was very real. Effective reform cannot be accomplished by one nation alone. It will require a comprehensive, international response. With the significant majority of the worldwide swaps market located in the U.S. and Europe, the effectiveness of reform depends on our ability to cooperate and find general consensus on this much needed regulation.
Thank you, and I’d be happy to take questions.