Regulatory: The CFTC’s record year
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently reported that it filed a record number of enforcement actions in 2012.
October 11, 2012 at 05:15 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently reported that it filed a record number of enforcement actions in 2012. Steadily increasing its pursuit of fraud since Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, the agency has brought 102 enforcement actions so far this year. The result has been more than $585 million in sanctions against alleged violators.
To put these numbers in perspective, and to highlight the CFTC's increasingly prominent regulatory role, consider that the agency improved on last year's numbers and nearly doubled its enforcement actions from two years ago, when it pursued only 57 enforcement actions. The CFTC also more than doubled the amount of sanctions it levied from last year.
As we all know by now, the agency has the Dodd-Frank Act to thank, in large part. The act's provisions have given the CFTC increased authority and additional weapons to initiate investigations and enforcement actions. The Dodd-Frank Act has not been a stranger to this column, specifically the various methods the act affords regulatory agencies to pursue market fraud and manipulation. But the act also gives the CFTC the power to write rules to bolster its oversight of financial markets.
The agency's growing prominence goes well beyond Dodd-Frank. For example, the agency can attribute much of its success to cooperation with domestic and international regulators. During the past year, the CFTC received more than 300 responses to requests for assistance in pursuing fraud. More than 70 different regulatory agencies lent a helping hand pursuant to various information sharing agreements. In addition, the CFTC gained notoriety for its involvement in several high-profile matters. It levied its largest fine in history, $200 million, against Barclays PLC for the alleged manipulation and false reporting of LIBOR and other global interest rates. In another matter, JP Morgan paid $20 million to settle CFTC allegations that it mishandled Lehman Brothers Inc.'s customer funds during the firm's decline. And finally, the agency continues to focus on its more traditional matters, including cases involving Ponzi schemes, false statements to the CFTC, violations of customer funds safeguards, stock manipulation, fraud in mineral futures and position limit violations.
The increase in CFTC enforcement actions presents an even more telling picture of growing regulatory oversight in the financial market when coupled with last year's record-breaking year for the SEC. With a broader mandate than the CFTC to pursue fraud, the SEC brought 734 enforcement actions, collecting $2.8 billion in sanctions. So far, this year, the SEC is on pace to build on last year's numbers.
Taken as a whole, these statistics and increased cooperation among regulators should be a warning for both in-house and outside counsel. Although many suspected it, the statistics now confirm it: dogged regulatory oversight is here to stay. This trend points toward regulators increasing investigations and actions into any potential fraud, trade violations or mismanagement of customer funds. The CFTC is already looking to improve on last year's numbers and has opened more than 350 new investigations in 2012. For counsel, the focus must be on careful internal and external monitoring of market activity to avoid contributing to the CFTC's rising numbers next year.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently reported that it filed a record number of enforcement actions in 2012. Steadily increasing its pursuit of fraud since Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, the agency has brought 102 enforcement actions so far this year. The result has been more than $585 million in sanctions against alleged violators.
To put these numbers in perspective, and to highlight the CFTC's increasingly prominent regulatory role, consider that the agency improved on last year's numbers and nearly doubled its enforcement actions from two years ago, when it pursued only 57 enforcement actions. The CFTC also more than doubled the amount of sanctions it levied from last year.
As we all know by now, the agency has the Dodd-Frank Act to thank, in large part. The act's provisions have given the CFTC increased authority and additional weapons to initiate investigations and enforcement actions. The Dodd-Frank Act has not been a stranger to this column, specifically the various methods the act affords regulatory agencies to pursue market fraud and manipulation. But the act also gives the CFTC the power to write rules to bolster its oversight of financial markets.
The agency's growing prominence goes well beyond Dodd-Frank. For example, the agency can attribute much of its success to cooperation with domestic and international regulators. During the past year, the CFTC received more than 300 responses to requests for assistance in pursuing fraud. More than 70 different regulatory agencies lent a helping hand pursuant to various information sharing agreements. In addition, the CFTC gained notoriety for its involvement in several high-profile matters. It levied its largest fine in history, $200 million, against
The increase in CFTC enforcement actions presents an even more telling picture of growing regulatory oversight in the financial market when coupled with last year's record-breaking year for the SEC. With a broader mandate than the CFTC to pursue fraud, the SEC brought 734 enforcement actions, collecting $2.8 billion in sanctions. So far, this year, the SEC is on pace to build on last year's numbers.
Taken as a whole, these statistics and increased cooperation among regulators should be a warning for both in-house and outside counsel. Although many suspected it, the statistics now confirm it: dogged regulatory oversight is here to stay. This trend points toward regulators increasing investigations and actions into any potential fraud, trade violations or mismanagement of customer funds. The CFTC is already looking to improve on last year's numbers and has opened more than 350 new investigations in 2012. For counsel, the focus must be on careful internal and external monitoring of market activity to avoid contributing to the CFTC's rising numbers next year.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
Trending Stories
- 1Not Here: Court Finds Texas Has No Jurisdiction Over Google
- 2Lawyer's Retirement Benefits Excluded From Marital Property
- 3'David and Goliath' Dispute Between Software Developers Ends in $24M Settlement
- 4Supreme Court Takes Up the Corporate Transparency Act: Recent Litigation and Potential Next Steps
- 5Brogdon: The Final Nail in Corbin’s Coffin in Premises Cases
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250