(a) A futures commission merchant must provide an opportunity to each customer, when it first opens a futures account, foreign futures account or cleared swaps account with such futures commission merchant, to designate such account as a hedging account. The futures commission merchant must indicate prominently in the accounting records in which it maintains open trade balances whether, for each customer account, the account is designated as a hedging account.
(b) A futures commission merchant may permit the customer to open an account as a hedging account only if it obtains the customer's written representation that the customer's trading of futures or options on futures, foreign futures or options on foreign futures, or cleared swaps (as applicable) in the account constitutes hedging as such term may be defined under any relevant Commission regulation or rule of any clearing organization, designated contract market, swap execution facility or foreign board of trade.
(c) The requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to a futures commission merchant with respect to any commodity contract account that the futures commission merchant opened prior to May 13, 2021. The futures commission merchant may continue to designate as a hedging account any account with respect to which the futures commission merchant received written hedging instructions from the customer in accordance with former § 190.06(d) of this chapter.
(d) A futures commission merchant may designate an existing futures account, foreign futures account or cleared swaps account of a particular customer as a hedging account, provided that it has obtained the representation set out in paragraph (b) of this section from such customer.
[86 FR 19419, Apr. 13, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Jordon v. New York Mercantile Exch., 571 F. Supp. 1530 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
· cites it 4× “14(E)(1)(j)). 1 All these provisions were approved by the CFTC under § 5a(12) of the CEA, 7 U.”
Sam Wong & Son, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exch., 735 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1984).
· cites it 5× “41(f)(2), 17 C.F.R. § 1.41 (f)(2), discussed infra, the NYME, on Friday morning, March 9, promptly notified the Commission of the emergency resolutions adopted during the night.”
Grosser v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 639 F. Supp. 1293 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
“, 17 C.F.R. § 1.41 (f)(3)(i) (1980) (authorizing liquidation only rules), and in which there are legitimate reasons for frequent communication among the alleged conspirators.”
Bishop v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 564 F. Supp. 1557 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
“The business judgment rule may provide a useful analogy, but it is not dispositive of the question presented. 4 . The regulations provide: “A temporary emergency rule may .”
Case & Co. v. Bd. of Trade, 523 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1975).
“41, 17 C.F.R. § 1.41 (1974), adopted after the events here, requires that copies of a proposed change in a regulation of an exchange be filed with the agency three weeks prior to its effective date, but provides that in “unusual circumstances in which such notice is impractical,…”
Zimmerman, Raymond v. Chicago Bd Trade, 360 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2004).
“17 C.F.R. § 1.41 (a)(4)(ii) (1989). By way of describing an actual or attempted manipulation, “emergencies” were defined to include “any actual, attempted, or threatened corner, squeeze, congestion, or undue concentration of positions .”
— 17 C.F.R. § 1.41(f)(3) — 1 case
Bishop v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 564 F. Supp. 1557 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
“The business judgment rule may provide a useful analogy, but it is not dispositive of the question presented. 4 . The regulations provide: “A temporary emergency rule may .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.