17 C.F.R. § 35.1

Agricultural swaps, generally

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

(a) Any person or group of persons may offer to enter into, enter into, confirm the execution of, maintain a position in, or otherwise conduct activity related to, any transaction in interstate commerce that is a swap in an agricultural commodity subject to all provisions of the Act, including any Commission rule, regulation, or order thereunder, otherwise applicable to any other swap; and

(b) In addition to paragraph (a) of this section, any transaction in interstate commerce that is a swap in an agricultural commodity may be transacted on a swap execution facility, designated contract market, or otherwise in accordance with all provisions of the Act, including any Commission rule, regulation, or order thereunder, applicable to any other swap eligible to be transacted on a swap execution facility, designated contract market, or otherwise.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1996–2003 · leading case: Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n, 322 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n, 322 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “See 17 C.F.R. § 35.1 (a). 23 The FTPA also sought to remove the legal uncertainty created by state bucket shop laws.”

Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n, 310 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 17 C.F.R. § 35.1 (a). 23 The FTPA also sought to remove the legal uncertainty created by state bucket shop laws.”

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 925 F. Supp. 1270 (S.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 2× “17 C.F.R. § 35.1 (b) (1993). The 5s/30s and DM swaps fit within this definition.”

Thrifty Oil Co. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n (In Re Thrifty Oil Co.), 249 B.R. 537 (S.D. Cal. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 17 C.F.R. § 35.1 (a). 23 The FTPA also sought to remove the legal uncertainty created by state bucket shop laws.”

Repub. Nat'l Bank v. Hales, 75 F. Supp. 2d 300 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “2 During that telephone conversation, Nadelson inquired as to whether Hales was an “eligible swap participant” within the meaning of 17 C.F.R. § 35.1 (b)(2), and advised Hales that Republic would be seeking a representation that (1) Hales had a net worth of at least $10,000,000,…”

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.