The CFTC's position limit rules were vacated in their entirety by the Court. Under the Court's decision, the CFTC is able to re-adopt the prior rules, amend them, or drop them, subject to the requirement discussed below. The argument between the CFTC, on the one hand, and ISDA, on the other, turned on their respective interpretations of Section 4a of the CEA. Essentially, the CFTC argued that the Section was unambiguous in requiring the CFTC to set position limits on commodities without regard to any finding by the CFTC that such position limits were in the public interest. Conversely, ISDA

ISDA responded to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision ("BCBS") and the International Organization of Securities Commissions ("IOSCO") with respect to the Consultative Document "Margin requirements for non-centrally-cleared derivatives" of July 2012. Specifically, ISDA expressed its concern that the severe application of the proposals, as presented in the consultation, has the potential to undermine systemic resiliency by significantly affecting liquidity in financial markets and the general economy. Lofchie Comment: ISDA's response to IOSCO, and IOSCO's reaction, also has significance

In its comment letter to the Wheatley Review, ISDA stated that it fully supports the view of, and recommendation by, the Financial Services Authority to comprehensively reform Libor, rather than replacing it. ISDA believes that economically, Libor continues to be hugely relevant to, and necessary for the proper functioning of, the OTC derivatives market and the underlying markets to which the derivatives relate. View letter in full here (links externally to PDF). To view the consultation to which ISDA is responding, clickhere to the related news item, which will take one to a summary page in

Freddie Mac announced the dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit filed against the company in federal court in August 2008 alleging securities fraud. The Court rejected claims that Freddie Mac's public disclosures from November 20, 2007 to September 7, 2008 were materially false or misleading.

MFA filed an amicus brief in the Barclays Capital and LBI SIPA Trustee litigation before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. MFA's brief, while disagreeing with the position of the lower court, supports the reaffirmation of the principles of transparency and finality inherent in the unique Section 363 sale process, upon which capital market investors have come to depend. MFA supports the Section 363 sale procedures under bankruptcy law: (i) non-ordinary course transfers of a debtor's assets must be reviewed pursuant to the Section 363 notice and hearing requirements; (ii) public