CFTC Staff Letters

Exemptive relief for a CPO from auditing a pool’s 2015 annual report.

Exemptive relief for a CPO from auditing a pool’s 2015 annual report.

Interpretative relief granted that states that a pool that is only funded and traded by two brothers is not a commodity pool

Exemptive relief granted to a CPO of pools that began operations during the fourth quarter of 2015 from providing annual reports for fiscal year 2015; provided, that the CPO provide an annual report that covers the period from the beginning of operations to the end of fiscal year 2016 after the end of fiscal year 2016. The CPO has provided waivers from all participants of the pools.

The CPO of a commodity pool requested, and DSIO granted pursuant to Regulations 4.12(a) and 140.93, relief from Regulations 4.7(b)(3) and 4.22(d), which require the filing and distribution of audited financial statements, for fiscal year 2015 and requested to be permitted to file with NFA and distribute to participants audited financial statements for the pool covering the period from July 21, 2015 to December 31, 2016.

No-Action Relief from the Timing Requirements of Commission Regulation 3.3(f)(2) Relating to Annual Reports by Chief Compliance Officers for Deutsche Bank AG.

No-Action Relief from the Timing Requirements of Commission Regulation 3.3(f)(2) Relating to Annual Reports by Chief Compliance Officers for Commerzbank AG.

Extension of Time-Limited No-Action Relief with Respect to Certain Commodity Exchange Act Provisions That May Apply to Southwest Power Pool, Inc. and/or Its Participants.

Advisory to Futures Commission Merchants reminding them of key risk management program requirements and sharing observed examples of practices for implementing an effective program.

The Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight took a no-action position with respect to IBs guaranteed by a certain FCM, where the IBs would introduce ECP swap counterparties to each other, without opening or carrying customer accounts with the guarantor FCM. For uncleared swaps, no FCM would be involved in the transaction, and for cleared swaps, each counterparty would use an FCM for clearing that the counterparty had selected. The guarantor FCM would remain well-capitalized for the risk undertaken, and would be jointly and severally liable for all obligations of each of the guaranteed IBs with respect to their solicitation of swaps orders.