The CFTC's supplement to its proposed modification of the aggregation provisions of Part 150 ("Limits on Positions") of the CFTC Regulations was published in the Federal Register. The supplement would revise how the CFTC addresses situations in which aggregation is required on the basis of 50 percent or more of common ownership. The CFTC also noted that if (i) the proposed position limits regime for 28 exempt and agricultural commodity futures and options contracts and (ii) the physical commodity swaps that are economically equivalent to such contracts are finalized, then the proposed

The NFA's senior staff held an audio conference to help its swap dealer and major swap participant members prepare for upcoming examinations. Topics covered by the conference included the following: the NFA's examination approach and an update on the NFA's continuing monitoring program. The NFA also hosted a Q&A session immediately after the conference.

The CFTC simultaneously filed and settled charges against a swap dealer for failing to report certain swap transaction information properly. The order also alleges violations of supervision requirements by the swap dealer. In particular, the CFTC order alleges that the company failed to report cancellations of swap transactions properly, which resulted in "between tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands" of reporting violations, errors and omissions in its swap reporting. In connection with these violations, the CFTC found that this failure, coupled with the failure by the firm to respond

The SEC announced enforcement actions against 22 municipal underwriting firms for violations under the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation ("MCDC") Initiative, a program of voluntary self-reporting that targets material misstatements and omissions in municipal bond offering documents. The SEC found that between 2010 and 2014, the 22 underwriting firms violated federal securities laws by selling municipal bonds using offering documents that contained materially false statements or omissions concerning the bond issuers' compliance with continuing disclosure obligations. The SEC also

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to an ongoing SEC administrative enforcement proceeding. The Court held that a party to such a proceeding must first defend against it and then seek review from the SEC and, eventually, the federal appellate courts. The three-judge panel affirmed a previous holding by the Federal District Court, and held that (i) the respondent to the SEC proceeding must finish the administrative process first before seeking judicial review and (ii) "the securities laws provide an exclusive avenue for judicial