Tag: Manipulation

CFTC v. Kraft

In a Consent Order entered on August 15, Kraft Foods Group, Inc, and its subsidiary Mondelez Global LLC agreed to pay $16 million to settle the CFTC’s complaint alleging the firms manipulated the December 2011 wheat futures markets. The settlement was thought to have ended the litigation, begun in 2015, however, shortly after the entry of the Consent Order, the firms filed a motion seeking contempt sanctions against the CFTC and Commissioners Berkovitz and Behnam. Kraft’s emergency motion alleges the Commission’s statements, and individual Commissioner statements filed concurrently with the Consent Order violated the terms of the settlement.

The Consent Order contained two unusual aspects. First it contained no factual findings or conclusions of law. Second, it contained a clause limiting the parties’ ability to speak publicly on the litigation.

Under the Consent Agreement, both parties agreed to refrain from making any public statements, other than to refer to the terms of the settlement. The CFTC issued a press release outlining the initial claims brought against the firms, and touting the $16 million fine as “approximately three times the defendants’ alleged gain.” The CFTC simultaneously released two other statements regarding the Consent Order, one from the Commission itself, and a joint statement by Commissioners Berkovitz and Behnam.

In their release, the Commissioners stated that the “consent order only limits statements of the Commission as a collective body. Individual Commissioners, speaking in their own capacities, retain their right and ability to speak fully and truthfully about this matter.” The statement goes on to “explain to Congress and the public the basis for the sanctions obtained, as well as the rationale for entering into a settlement agreement rather than pursuing litigation.”

In their motion for contempt, filed last Friday, Kraft argued that the three statements by the CFTC were willful violations of the Consent Order. According to their memorandum in support of the motion, the three statements were released simultaneously in an orchestrated effort to violate the Consent Order, arguing that even if only the CFTC were bound by the Consent Order the Commission violated it “when it endorsed the statements of its Commissioners by identifying them in the CFTC’s official press release, linking to them, and posting them prominently on the CFTC’s webpage announcing the settlement.” Kraft further argued that not only did the violation of the Consent Order harm Kraft, but allowing Commissioners to speak publicly on issues the Commission is prohibited by the Consent Order from discussing will harm future litigants. “There will be no reason for future parties to agree to settlements if the Commissioners – the only parties with the power to bind the CFTC to an agreement in the first place – may simply disregard the agreement without consequence.”

The Commission has since voluntarily removed the press release, Commission statement, and Commissioners’ statement from its website. Judge Blakely has ordered Commissioners Behnam and Berkovitz to appear before the court in person at an evidentiary hearing scheduled for September 12, 2019.

CFTC Decides Not to Appeal the DRW Ruling

In a recent announcement, the CFTC indicated it would not appeal its district court loss in CFTC v. DRW, stating, “After careful consideration of the issues, as well as discussion with agency staff and Commissioners, Chairman Giancarlo has decided the agency will not appeal the district court’s decision.”

In 2013, the CFTC filed a complaint against principal trading firm DRW Investments, LLC (“DRW”) and its principal, alleging price manipulation of a various interest rate swaps futures contract in 2011, specifically the IDEX Three-Month Interest Rate Swap Future (the “Three-Month Contract”). The CFTC alleged that DRW’s bidding practices in the Three-Month Contract created artificial daily settlement prices. The Commission based this assertion primarily upon the fact that the bids in question were higher than the corresponding rates in the contemporaneous over the counter (“OTC”) swap market. DRW argued its bids were not only a truer indication of the fair value of the future, but contributed to a more accurate valuation. Cleared futures contracts are marked to market daily with a corresponding exchange in variation margin payments, while uncleared OTC swaps generally do not involve such margin payments. DRW identified this difference and entered bids to reflect the variance.

District court Judge Richard Sullivan agreed with DRW, writing in his November 30, 2018 opinion, “there can be no dispute that a cleared interest rate swap contract is economically distinguishable from, and therefore not equivalent to, an uncleared interest rate swap, even when the two contracts otherwise have the same price point, duration, and notional amount.” CFTC v. Wilson, No. 13 Civ. 7884.

Judge Sullivan’s comprehensive opinion was notable in its criticism of the CFTC’s case, stating the CFTC provided “no evidence or explanation that … settlement prices were artificially high.” Id. The intent to affect market prices, on its own, is insufficient to show manipulation, a market participant must intend to cause, or cause in fact, an artificial price. Rather than being manipulative, DRW’s trading activity was simply a result of the firm’s understanding that the Three-Month Contract was not the economic equivalent of an OTC Swap. According to Judge Sullivan, “the so-called price distortion decried by the CFTC was simply a more accurate assessment of the fair market value of the… contract.”

While the CFTC’s statement announcing its decision not to appeal was brief, it also stressed the Commission’s intention continue the vigorous enforcement of its anti-manipulation rules, and litigate cases when necessary.

SEC Freezes $27 Million Related to a Blockchain/Cryptocurrency Acquisition

On April 6, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) obtained a court order freezing more than $27 million in proceeds from alleged illegal distributions and sales of restricted shares of a public company, and charged the company, its CEO, and three other affiliated individuals. That same day, the Nasdaq Stock Market said it halted trading in the company’s stock. The SEC’s complaint alleges that shortly after the company began trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market and announced the acquisition of a purported blockchain-empowered cryptocurrency business that its stock price rose dramatically until its market capitalization exceeded $3 billion. The SEC further alleges that the CEO and the three other individual defendants then illegally sold large blocks of their restricted shares to the public while the stock price was excessively elevated and that they collectively reaped more than $27 million in profits.

By way of background, and as alleged by the SEC, the company went public under a scaled-down version of a traditional initial public offering known as Reg A+ late last year. In December 2017, the company’s Class A shares began trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Two days later, the company announced that it had acquired the purported blockchain-empowered cryptocurrency business from another entity. The SEC alleges that one of the individual defendants held at least a 92% stake in this entity. The SEC further alleges that — notwithstanding that this acquired business had no ascertainable value — the company’s stock price rose excessively and quickly after said acquisition. Specifically, by December 18, 2017, the company’s stock price rose to a high of $142.82 per share; an increase of nearly 550% from the prior day’s closing price and about 2,670% above the company’s closing price on its first day of trading just several days earlier.

This action serves as yet another example of the SEC’s heightened and aggressive focus in this area. As we discussed previously on this blog, one of the focus areas for the SEC’s Cyber Unit that was created just last September is “Violations involving distributed ledger technology and initial coin offerings.” More recently, the financial press reported that the SEC had launched a “sweep” in this area by serving subpoenas and information requests on technology companies and investment management firms and brokers doing business in the virtual currency markets.

Returning to the SEC’s $27 million freeze action here, the SEC alleged only registration offering violations against the defendants. This may not be the last of the charges, however, as the SEC described this as a “continuing investigation” in its press release.

Jim Lundy Appointed as Independent Monitor in the CFTC v. 3Red Trading & Oystacher Manipulative Trading / Spoofing Matter

Chicago partner Jim Lundy was appointed by the Honorable Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to serve as the independent monitor for one of the first “spoofing” manipulative trading enforcement actions instituted by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Jim’s appointment is part of a settlement between the CFTC and 3Red Trading LLC and its principal, Igor B. Oystacher, entered on December 20, 2016. Over the next three years, Jim will be responsible for monitoring the trading of 3Red and Oystacher, and identifying any future violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC Regulations as charged and pursuant to a monitoring agreement.

The CFTC filed its initial complaint on October 19, 2015. In its complaint, the CFTC alleged the employment of manipulative trading / spoofing by the Defendants in the markets for E-Mini S&P 500, Copper, Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and VIX futures contracts on multiple exchanges.

In addition to the monitorship, as part of the settlement 3Red and Oystacher agreed to pay a $2.5 million penalty, jointly and severally. Judge St. Eve also ordered 3Red and Oystacher to employ certain compliance tools with respect to Oystacher’s futures trading on U.S. exchanges for an 18-month period, and permanently prohibited the Defendants from spoofing and the employment of manipulative or deceptive devices while trading futures contracts.

Additional information on the settlement and Jim’s appointment is discussed in Crain’s Chicago Business, “3 Red agrees to $2.5 million fine, monitoring.” (Log-in may be required).

Jim joined Drinker Biddle after working at the SEC for 12 years. During his tenure, he served in the Enforcement Division as a Senior Trial Counsel and a Branch Chief and in the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations as a Senior Regulatory Counsel, where he assisted with operating the SEC’s broker-dealer examination program for the Midwest Region. Prior to joining Drinker Biddle, Jim worked in-house at a futures and securities brokerage firm affiliated with a European-based global bank and represented his firm before futures regulators, FINRA, and the SEC.

In Jim’s practice he represents clients in matters involving the various regulatory bodies with enforcement, examination, and policy oversight of the securities and futures industries.

Third Circuit Clarifies Extraterritorial Reach of Federal Securities Laws

The Third Circuit recently clarified the extraterritorial limits of the federal securities laws, as the U.S. Supreme Court defined in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010). See United States v. Georgiou, Nos. 10-4774, 11-4587, 12-2077, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 241438 (3d Cir. Jan. 20, 2015). George Georgiou and his co-conspirators made zero-sum trades between brokerage accounts in Canada, the Bahamas, and Turks and Caicos to artificially inflate the value of four “target stocks” that were available for trade in the U.S. through two interdealer quotation systems, the OTC Bulletin Board (“OTCBB”) and the Pink Sheets. Id. at *1. Georgiou used the fraudulently inflated value of his ownership interest in the target stocks as collateral to obtain loans that he would never repay, ultimately costing his creditors and the other stockholders of the target stocks millions of dollars. Id. On appeal, Georgiou argued that his convictions could not stand because they were based on the extraterritorial application of the federal securities laws. Id.

In Morrison, the Supreme Court limited Rule 10(b)’s application to two types of transactions: “(1) transactions involving ‘the purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange,’ and (2) transactions involving ‘the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States.’” Georgiou, 2015 WL 241438, at *4 (quoting Morrison, 561 U.S. at 273). The Third Circuit determined that Georgiou’s transactions were not of the first type, even though some of the purchases were executed by market makers operating within the United States, because the SEC does not consider the OTCBB and the Pink Sheets to be securities exchanges. Id. at *4–5.

The Third Circuit held, however, that Georgiou’s transactions were of the second type because they involved “the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States.” Id. at *4. Whether a transaction is domestic, the court observed, does not depend on “‘the place where the deception originated, but [the place where] purchases and sales of securities’ occurred.” Id. at *5 (quoting Morrison, 561 U.S. at 266). A purchase or sale of securities occurs “when the parties incur irrevocable liability to carry out the transaction,” such as “the formation of the contracts, the placement of purchase orders, the passing of title, or the exchange of money.” Id. at *5–6 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Third Circuit held that at least one transaction in each of the target stocks involved the purchase or sale of a security in the United States because “all of the manipulative trades were ‘facilitate[d]’ by U.S.-based market makers, i.e., an American market maker bought the stock from the seller and sold it to the buyer.” Id. at *6. Accordingly, the court affirmed Georgiou’s conviction under Section 10(b).

The take away: would-be fraudsters who think they can escape federal securities laws by setting up shop outside the U.S. to manipulate domestic securities should think again.

©2024 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
Privacy Policy