7 U.S.C. § 19
Consideration of costs and benefits and antitrust laws
Before promulgating a regulation under this chapter or issuing an order (except as provided in paragraph (3)), the Commission shall consider the costs and benefits of the action of the Commission.
The Commission shall take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of this chapter, as well as the policies and purposes of this chapter, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation (including any exemption under section 6(c) or 6c(b) of this title), or in requiring or approving any bylaw, rule, or regulation of a contract market or registered futures association established pursuant to section 21 of this title.
2000—Pub. L. 106–554 inserted section catchline, added subsec. (a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (b), and inserted subsec. (b) heading.
1992—Pub. L. 102–546 substituted “regulation (including any exemption under section 6(c) or 6c(b) of this title)” for “regulation”.
For effective date of section, see section 418 of Pub. L. 93–463, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1978–2020 · leading case: Sec. Indus. & Fin. Markets Ass'n v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 67 F. Supp. 3d 373 (D.D.C. 2014).
Sec. Indus. & Fin. Markets Ass'n v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 67 F. Supp. 3d 373 (D.D.C. 2014). “See 7 U.S.C. § 19 (a)(1), Instead, the CFTC “limit[ed]” its final rulemakings to the substantive requirements of the Title VII Rules, describing those Rules’ extraterritorial applications as “beyond the scope of this rulemaking,” see Swap Entity Registration Rule, 77 Fed.”
Inv. Co. Inst. v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 891 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D.D.C. 2012). “” 7 U.S.C. § 19 (a). The defendant addressed each of these five factors in considering the Final Rule.”
Inv. Co. Inst. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 720 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “The Commodity Exchange Act requires that CFTC “consider the costs and benefits” of its actions and “evaluate[]” those costs and benefits “in light of’ five factors: “(A) considerations of protection of market participants and the public; (B) considerations of the efficiency,…”
New York Mercantile Exch., Inc. v. Intercontinental Exch., Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “7 U.S.C. § 19 . Section 19(a) of the CEA provides that the costs and benefits of CFTC action must be evaluated in light of, among other factors, “protection of market participants and the public”; “the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets”; and…”
Strax v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 936 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “§ 18— makes antitrust remedies in this area superfluous, and because by 7 U.S.C. § 19 , Congress has directed the CFTC to “take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws.”
Bloomberg L.P. v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 949 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2013). “See 7 U.S.C. § 19 (a). Specifically, the CEA requires the Commission to consider five areas of market and public concern in its cost-benefit analysis, which include (1), protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of…”
Int'l Swaps & Derivatives Ass'n v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 887 F. Supp. 2d 259 (D.D.C. 2012). “§ 6a(a)(l), (a)(2)(A), (a)(5)(A)); 2) Count Two: Violation of the CEA — Insufficient Evaluation of Costs and Benefits under 7 U.S.C. § 19 (a); 3) Count Three: Violation of the APA — Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action in Promulgating the Position Limits Rule; 4) Count Four:…”
U.S. Futures Exch., L.L.C. v. Bd. of Trade of the City of, 953 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2020). “7 U.S.C. § 19 (b). Keeping with this mandate, the Commission considered and acknowledged comment letters raising anticompetitive concerns but 12 Even though exchange and clearing rules can be self-certified with- out the Commission’s input, that is not what happened here.”
Commodity Futures Trading v. Am. Bd. of Trade, Inc., 473 F. Supp. 1177 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “See 7 U.S.C. § 19 (“The Commission shall take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of this chapter.”
U.S. Futures Exch., LLC v. Bd. of Trade of Chi., Inc., 346 F. Supp. 3d 1230 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “As defendants point out, however, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act expressly preserved the option for registered entities to invoke a prior approval process asking the CFTC to formally determine whether a submitted rule is consistent with the CEA. See 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)…”
Rosenthal v. Bagley, 450 F. Supp. 1120 (N.D. Ill. 1978). “As such, the informal hearings held by the Commission prior to the adoption of the rule were procedurally inadequate and a denial of plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory *1122 rights; (2) the Commission exceeded its authority in adopting this regulation which is…”
Commodity Exch., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 543 F. Supp. 1340 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). “7 U.S.C. § 19 (1980). 85 . Id. (emphasis supplied).”
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.