Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This article analyzes the confusion faced by commodity futures traders in assessing whether their trading strategies constitute illegal spoofing and examines whether the CFTC and Seventh Circuit have provided sufficient guidance on the distinction between spoofing and legitimate trading activity.
In 2010, Congress expressly criminalized a type of trading activity on the commodity futures exchanges referred to as “spoofing.” This new anti-spoofing statute greatly increased a prosecutor’s power to crack down on traders who place and cancel orders at extremely high speeds through the use of powerful computer programs, supposedly in order to manipulate commodity futures prices and harm innocent investors. However, following the government’s first criminal conviction for spoofing in United States v. Coscia, questions remain about what makes a commodity futures trader’s conduct illegal instead of a legitimate trading strategy. Nonetheless, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently have brought a substantial number of new cases against traders for violations of the anti-spoofing statute.
*May exclude premium content
By Jacqueline C. Wolff
Given the massive amount of dollars being poured into ESG funds and the SEC’s renewed focus on both the funds and the companies in the funds, there is no time like the present for companies to engage in an assessment of their climate risks and how these risks and the status of the companies’ ESG goals are being relayed to investors.
By Michael Miller and Daniel Podair
How the government might frame insider trading cases based on allegations of tipping before the execution of block trades in securities.
By Jonathan S. Sack and Christopher M. Hurley
To date, cybersecurity has generally been viewed as an organizational responsibility, and data breaches similarly have been treated as organizational weaknesses or failures. Against this backdrop of organizational responsibility, the Department of Justice has brought a noteworthy criminal case against an individual for his personal response to a corporate data breach.
By Harry Sandick and George Carotenuto
In recent years, mostly due to the well-publicized prosecution of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, FARA has become more of a focus for federal prosecutors. As a result, white-collar attorneys have been consulted more often about whether particular conduct requires registration under the Act.