7 U.S.C. § 7a
Repealed. Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, § 734(a), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1718
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982).
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982). “1401 (adding § 5a(11) of the CEA, codified as subsequently amended, 7 U. S. C. § 7a(11) (1976 ed., Supp. IV)).”
Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exch., 409 U.S. 289 (1973). “The Chicago Mercantile Exchange has such membership rules, and it had the statutory duty to enforce them to the extent that they constituted or were related to "trading requirements," 7 U. S. C. § 7a (8). If the transfer of Ricci's membership was pursuant to a valid rule, the…”
Jordon v. New York Mercantile Exch., 571 F. Supp. 1530 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “Section 5a(10), 7 U.S.C. § 7a(10), does deal explicitly with exchange duties in connection with the terms of futures contracts, but, as discussed, the language of that provision and its emphasis on the CFTC’s role in proposing amendments to exchanges, indicate that it was not…”
David v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 440 N.W.2d 269 (N.D. 1989). “§ 2 , it had jurisdiction to resolve David’s fraud-in-the-inducement claim. In 1988 Merrill Lynch sought reconsideration of the district court’s holding that 7 U.”
John F. Belom v. Nat'l Futures Ass'n & Joy Ju, 284 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2002). “In Geldermann, the plaintiff argued that 7 U.S.C. § 7a(11), 1 which required a registered contract market to provide for customer initiated arbitration, required a member’s consent to arbitrate.”
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (1947). “1491 , 1498, 7 U.S.C. § 7a (7) provides that receipts issued under the United States Warehouse Act "shall be accepted in satisfaction of any futures contract .”
Breyer v. First Nat'l Monetary Corp., 548 F. Supp. 955 (D.N.J. 1982). “6 , even though both types of claims were explicitly excluded in 7 U.S.C. § 7a(l 1). The CFTC justified these regulations as being within their general regulatory power under 7 U.”
Karen E. Cardoza v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., an Illinois Corp., 768 F.2d 1542 (7th Cir. 1985). “7 U.S.C. § 7a(8). 8 Violations of such CFTC-approved exchange rules would indicate that CFTC review is at least potentially appropriate.”
Geldermann, Inc., & Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago, Intervening-Appellee v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 836 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1987). “7 U.S.C. § 7a(8). Failure to enforce its rules would subject the CBOT to a civil penalty and fines up to $100,000 and would subject CBOT officials to criminal prosecution and, upon conviction, fines and/or imprisonment.”
Lincoln Commodity Servs., a Div. of Lincoln Grain, Inc. v. Thomas Meade, 558 F.2d 469 (8th Cir. 1977). “Meade points out that 7 U.S.C. § 7a requires contract markets (including Chicago Mercantile Exchange) to furnish the Secretary of Agriculture with copies of all bylaws, rules and regulations, and to enforce all such bylaws, rules and regulations relating to terms and conditions…”
Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc., E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., & New York Mercantile Exch., 748 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1984). “Under section 5a(8) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7a(8), NYME does have a duty to enforce its rules and if the delinquency and default rule is applicable to an EFP, NYME’s failure to enforce it may give rise to a cause of action.”
Darryl B. Deaktor v. L. D. Schreiber & Co., Al Phillips, Jr. v. The Chicago Mercantile Exch., 479 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1973). “The Exchange was sued on the ground of failing to exercise reasonable care in compliance with 7 U.S.C. § 7a(8), and thus failing to be aware of and to promptly halt the unlawful activities of the defendants.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(1) — 1 case
P. J. Taggares Co. v. New York Mercantile Exch., 476 F. Supp. 72 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(10) — 2 cases
Jordon v. New York Mercantile Exch., 571 F. Supp. 1530 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “Section 5a(10), 7 U.S.C. § 7a(10), does deal explicitly with exchange duties in connection with the terms of futures contracts, but, as discussed, the language of that provision and its emphasis on the CFTC’s role in proposing amendments to exchanges, indicate that it was not…”
Sam Wong & Son, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exch., 735 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1984).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(11) — 9 cases
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982). “1401 (adding § 5a(11) of the CEA, codified as subsequently amended, 7 U. S. C. § 7a(11) (1976 ed., Supp. IV)).”
John F. Belom v. Nat'l Futures Ass'n & Joy Ju, 284 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2002). “In Geldermann, the plaintiff argued that 7 U.S.C. § 7a(11), 1 which required a registered contract market to provide for customer initiated arbitration, required a member’s consent to arbitrate.”
Hagstrom v. Breutman, 572 F. Supp. 692 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
David v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 440 N.W.2d 269 (N.D. 1989). “§ 2 , it had jurisdiction to resolve David’s fraud-in-the-inducement claim. In 1988 Merrill Lynch sought reconsideration of the district court’s holding that 7 U.”
Dominic Marchese v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc., 734 F.2d 414 (9th Cir. 1984).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(12) — 11 cases
Jordon v. New York Mercantile Exch., 571 F. Supp. 1530 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “Section 5a(10), 7 U.S.C. § 7a(10), does deal explicitly with exchange duties in connection with the terms of futures contracts, but, as discussed, the language of that provision and its emphasis on the CFTC’s role in proposing amendments to exchanges, indicate that it was not…”
Commodity Exch., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 543 F. Supp. 1340 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).
Thomas Bernstein v. Lind-Waldock & Co. & Chicago Mercantile Exch., 738 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1984).
Am. Agric. Movement, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade, 977 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1992).
New York Mercantile Exch. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 443 F. Supp. 326 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(12)(A) — 1 case
R.J. O'Brien & Assoc., Inc. v. Thomas D. Pipkin, 64 F.3d 257 (7th Cir. 1995).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(7) — 2 cases
Greater Baton Rouge Port Comm'n, & Cargill, Inc. v. United States of Am., & Fed. Mar. Bd., 287 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1961).
Cargill, Inc. v. Commodity Exch. Comm'n, 103 F. Supp. 992 (D.D.C. 1952).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(8) — 27 cases
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982). “1401 (adding § 5a(11) of the CEA, codified as subsequently amended, 7 U. S. C. § 7a(11) (1976 ed., Supp. IV)).”
Karen E. Cardoza v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., an Illinois Corp., 768 F.2d 1542 (7th Cir. 1985). “7 U.S.C. § 7a(8). 8 Violations of such CFTC-approved exchange rules would indicate that CFTC review is at least potentially appropriate.”
Ryder Energy Distrib. Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities Inc., E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., & New York Mercantile Exch., 748 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1984). “Under section 5a(8) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7a(8), NYME does have a duty to enforce its rules and if the delinquency and default rule is applicable to an EFP, NYME’s failure to enforce it may give rise to a cause of action.”
Darryl B. Deaktor v. L. D. Schreiber & Co., Al Phillips, Jr. v. The Chicago Mercantile Exch., 479 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1973). “The Exchange was sued on the ground of failing to exercise reasonable care in compliance with 7 U.S.C. § 7a(8), and thus failing to be aware of and to promptly halt the unlawful activities of the defendants.”
De Atucha v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 608 F. Supp. 510 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(9) — 1 case
Thomas Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exch., an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corp., 447 F.2d 713 (7th Cir. 1971).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(a)(12) — 1 case
Bd. of Trade v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 66 F. Supp. 2d 891 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(l) — 2 cases
Lincoln Commodity Servs., a Div. of Lincoln Grain, Inc. v. Thomas Meade, 558 F.2d 469 (8th Cir. 1977). “Meade points out that 7 U.S.C. § 7a requires contract markets (including Chicago Mercantile Exchange) to furnish the Secretary of Agriculture with copies of all bylaws, rules and regulations, and to enforce all such bylaws, rules and regulations relating to terms and conditions…”
Case & Co. v. Bd. of Trade, 523 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1975).
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(ll) — 24 cases
David v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 440 N.W.2d 269 (N.D. 1989). “§ 2 , it had jurisdiction to resolve David’s fraud-in-the-inducement claim. In 1988 Merrill Lynch sought reconsideration of the district court’s holding that 7 U.”
Breyer v. First Nat'l Monetary Corp., 548 F. Supp. 955 (D.N.J. 1982). “6 , even though both types of claims were explicitly excluded in 7 U.S.C. § 7a(l 1). The CFTC justified these regulations as being within their general regulatory power under 7 U.”
Arkoosh v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc., 415 F. Supp. 535 (D. Neb. 1976).
Geldermann, Inc., & Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago, Intervening-Appellee v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 836 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1987). “7 U.S.C. § 7a(8). Failure to enforce its rules would subject the CBOT to a civil penalty and fines up to $100,000 and would subject CBOT officials to criminal prosecution and, upon conviction, fines and/or imprisonment.”
John F. Belom v. Nat'l Futures Ass'n & Joy Ju, 284 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2002). “In Geldermann, the plaintiff argued that 7 U.S.C. § 7a(11), 1 which required a registered contract market to provide for customer initiated arbitration, required a member’s consent to arbitrate.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 7a(ll)(iii) — 1 case
Bd. of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 704 F.2d 929 (7th Cir. 1983).
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.