'The
Prior to 2016, MLB tacitly authorized infielders who endeavored to initiate double plays not to physically touch the base where the lead runner was headed in order to cause the runner to be out. Instead, an infielder was allowed solely to be near the relevant base to achieve a force out before pivoting to throw the hitter out at first base. This was to avoid injury to the relevant infielder that might be caused by the lead runner sliding into him to try to break up the double play.
The "neighborhood play" was effectively disallowed by MLB following the 2015 season; instead, certain restrictions on runners sliding into infielders in a manner that might cause injury were enacted.
In the CFTC's enforcement action against
Additionally, the CFTC alleged that Voyager failed to provide its customers pool disclosure documents and that
Generally, applicable law requires all persons that operate a pooled investment vehicle that trades commodity interests register as a CPO unless otherwise exempt. Registered CPOs generally have multiple obligations, including providing disclosure documents to customers and making periodic reports to regulators.
The CFTC has traditionally held that pooled investment vehicles that invest in other investment vehicles that transact in commodity interests are commodity pools. However, this appears to be the first instance where the CFTC has alleged that a pooled investment vehicle that lends customer assets to another investment vehicle (even where it is unrelated) is also a commodity pool where the third party engages in commodity interest transactions. Apparently, the CFTC is now applying its version of the "neighborhood play," claiming that lending of customers' assets by Voyager to third parties that traded in commodity interests was close enough to investing to substantiate charging
The CFTC's legal theory in this case has already been questioned by one CFTC commissioner. According to Commissioner
...I caution that the CFTC's interpretation of a commodity pool operator in this enforcement action would seem to include commonplace lending activity - like taking deposits and providing loans. Such an interpretation is an overreach beyond our statutory authority and would disrupt well-established legal and regulatory frameworks for lending and consumer finance. There is a significant difference between managing investor money for the purpose of trading derivatives and taking deposits and providing loans to others.
Without addressing the specific charges of the Complaint, another Commissioner -
It is astounding that Voyager failed to exert pressure on the firms where it invested its customers' assets. Instead of demanding that investment firms that received customer assets offer greater levels of transparency, Voyager shirked the long-established expectations for custodians and simply dispatched customer funds with little effort to preserve the same."
Separately, on the same day that the CFTC filed its complaint against
There is a significant difference between managing investor money for the purpose of trading derivatives and taking deposits and providing loans to others." -- CFTC Commissioner
www.cftc.gov/...
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
NY 10022-2585
Tel: 3125778469
Fax: 3125774678
E-mail: brook.radford@katten.com
URL: www.katten.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source