17 C.F.R. § 1.56

Prohibition of guarantees against loss

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) [Reserved]

(b) No futures commission merchant or introducing broker may in any way represent that it will, with respect to any commodity interest in any account carried by the futures commission merchant for or on behalf of any person:

(1) Guarantee such person against loss;

(2) Limit the loss of such person; or

(3) Not call for or attempt to collect initial and maintenance margin as established by the rules of the applicable board of trade.

(c) No person may in any way represent that a futures commission merchant or introducing broker will engage in any of the acts or practices described in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) This section shall not be construed to prevent a futures commission merchant or introducing broker from:

(1) Assuming or sharing in the losses resulting from an error or mishandling of an order; or

(2) Participating as a general partner in a commodity pool which is a limited partnership.

(e) This section shall not affect any guarantee entered into prior to January 28, 1982, but this section shall apply to any extension, modification or renewal thereof entered into after such date.

[46 FR 62844, Dec. 29, 1981, as amended at 48 FR 35291, Aug. 3, 1983]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: Bieganek v. Wilson, 642 F. Supp. 768 (N.D. Ill. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bieganek v. Wilson, 642 F. Supp. 768 (N.D. Ill. 1986). “We think the Bieganeks have adequately sketched the details of the fraud, including time, place and content, putting defendants on fair notice under the above standards of the charges against them and enabling them to frame an answer.”

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Carnegie Trading Grp., Ltd., 450 F. Supp. 2d 788 (N.D. Ohio 2006). “56, 17 C.F.R. § 1.56 (FCMs and IBs are prohibited from making guarantees against loss).”

Notz v. Weiner (In re Chicago Disc. Commodity Brokers, Inc.), 58 B.R. 626 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1986). · cites it 4× “” The trustee has moved to strike defendant's affirmative defense.”

Brett Kandell v. .Dror Niv (Del. Ch. 2017). “57 It appears that the Plaintiff is referring to 17 C.F.R. § 1.56 , which contains prohibitions similar to those found in Regulation 5.”

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.