Search results

To provide an overview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (the “CFTC” or “Commission”) recent amendments to CFTC Rule 1.31, which sets forth recordkeeping requirements for all records required to be kept pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and Commission regulations.

This article discusses the significant May 2017 amendments to CFTC Rule 1.31 and the practical impact of these amendments for entities subject to the rule’s requirements.

The CFTC’s recordkeeping amendments do not impose any new substantive recordkeeping requirements, but modernize and make technology neutral the form and manner in which regulatory records must be kept. By eliminating a number of prescriptive and outdated requirements, the amendments should provide greater flexibility to “records entities” to adopt new technologies in response to evolving technological developments.

Practical guidance from experienced commodities, futures and derivatives lawyers.

To provide an overview of a new, streamlined process from the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (DSIO) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by which a commodity pool operator (CPO) may request expedited no-action relief for failure to register under Section 4m(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act if such CPO has designated another, registered CPO to serve as the CPO of the commodity pool.

Explains the background to the CPO registration no-action relief related to CPO delegation and the streamlined process for requesting no-action relief, including the procedure for requesting relief and the applicable criteria that must be satisfied to utilize the streamlined process.

By providing an alternative, streamlined process for requesting no-action relief from CPO registration in the context of delegation arrangements in certain circumstances, the CFTC staff is attempting to facilitate obtaining such relief, particularly since relief may be sought on behalf of multiple commodity pools by means of a single request. However, the criteria that must be fulfilled in order to utilize the streamlined process are not necessarily applicable to all CPOs and in all scenarios. Thus, certain CPOs may need to request no-action relief outside of the new, streamlined process or consider alternative fund structures.

Practical guidance from experienced asset management lawyers.

The purpose of this study is to raise the issue of contemporary retromania with marketing historians.

This is a reflective essay combining personal experiences with empirical exemplars.

It is found that retromarketing is a subject requiring scholarly scrutiny. The commodification of the past is increasingly prevalent and marketing historians are ideally placed to lead the discussion.

As yestermania is unlikely to evaporate anytime soon, it provides rich, socially and managerially relevant pickings for marketing historians.

Aside from the scurrilous suggestion that historians should get out of the dusty archives, it argues that originality is overrated.

To explain CFTC No-Action Letter 14-126, issued on October 15, 2014 by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, which sets forth a number of conditions with which a commodity pool operator (“CPO”) that delegates its CPO responsibilities (“Delegating CPO”) to a registered CPO (“Designated CPO”) must comply in order to take advantage of no-action relief from the requirement to register as a CPO.

Explains the modified conditions provided by Letter 14-126, including clarification of the permissible activities in which a Delegating CPO seeking to take advantage of registration no-action relief may engage regarding investment management, solicitation, and management of pool property; lists other criteria carried over from Letter 14-69 of May 12, 2014; provides analysis and discusses limitations of the relief provided by the CFTC No-Action letter.

The letter makes more liberal several of the conditions set forth in CFTC Letter 14-69 of May 12, 2014, with which many Delegating CPOs could not comply.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

Purpose: This chapter proposes narrative allyship across ability as a practice in which nondisabled researchers work with disabled nonresearchers to co-construct a process that centers and acts on the knowledge contained in and expressed by the lived experience of the disabled nonresearchers. This chapter situates narrative allyship across ability in the landscape of other participatory research practices, with a particular focus on oral history as a social justice praxis.

Approach: In order to explore the potential of this practice, the author outlines and reflects on both the methodology of her oral history graduate thesis work, a narrative project with self-advocates with Down syndrome, and includes and analyzes reflections about narrative allyship from a self-advocate with Down syndrome.

Findings: The author proposes three guiding principles for research as narrative allyship across ability, namely that such research further the interests of narrators as the narrators define them, optimize the autonomy of narrators, and tell stories with, instead of about, narrators.

Implications: This chapter suggests the promise of research praxis as a form of allyship: redressing inequality by addressing power, acknowledging expertise in subjugated knowledges, and connecting research practices to desires for social change or political outcomes. The author models methods by which others might include in their research narrative work across ability and demonstrates the particular value of knowledge produced when researchers attend to the lived expertise of those with disabilities. The practice of narrative allyship across ability has the potential to bring a wide range of experiences and modes of expression into the domains of research, history, policy, and culture that would otherwise exclude them.