CFTC Staff Letters Archive

CFTC Staff Letters Archive provides Letters from 2007 and earlier. For Letters published 2008 or later visit the All Letters page.

There are no Advisory Letters or Other Written Communications for 2007 or earlier.

Date	PDF and Description
11/25/1998	98-80 ; 4m(l); Rule 4.13;; No-Action the Division confirmed that a director of an offshore fund need not register as a commodity pool operator based upon, among others, representations that the director: (1) although a United States citizen, maintained his permanent residence in Greece; and (2) would not solicit pool participants from within the United States. The Division exempted the registered commodity trading advisor of the fund from the requirement to deliver a Disclosure Document to the fund based upon representations that the advisor: (1) was wholly-owned by one of the three directors of the fund; and (2) had no United States persons as clients.
11/20/1998	98-79 ; 4m(l);; No-Action The Division of Trading and Markets denied a request for relief from the commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor registration requirements of Section 4m(1) of the Act by, respectively, the general partner and the investment manager of a limited partnership where the request was based upon, among others, representations that the amount of the partnership's net assets to be used for commodity interest trading would be minimal. The Division stated that there currently is no exception to the obligation to register as a commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor based on the fact that a partnership makes only de minimis investments in commodity interests and took the position that the notice and comment rulemaking process, rather than a request for a no-action position, is the appropriate method by which to evaluate whether such an exception would be consistent with the Act and the public interest. The requestor was invited to file a petition for rulemaking.
11/18/1998	98-76 ; Section 4m(l) & 4d(l);; No-Action The Division of Trading and Markets declined a request for a no-action position with respect to introducing broker (IB) and commodity trading advisor (CTA) registration requirements from a firm that intended to offer a service that would refer members of the public seeking to trade commodity interest products to registered associated persons of CFTC registrants. The Division stated that the firm, through its operation of the referral service, would be soliciting for compensation since its ultimate goal is to introduce members of the public to CFTC registrants for the purpose of instituting a trading relationship.
11/12/1998	98-77 ; Rule 4.7(a);; No-Action The Division of Trading and Markets denied a request from a registered CPO to treat several non-QEP trusts as QEPs. The non-QEP trusts did not possess total assets in excess of the requisite $5 million dollars as required under Rule 4.7(a)(1)(ii)(B)(2)(xi).
11/12/1998	98-75 ; Rule 4.7(a);; No-Action The Division of Trading and Markets denied a request from a registered CPO to treat several non-QEP trusts as QEPs. The non-QEP trusts did not possess total assets of the requisite $5 million dollars as required under Rule 4.7(a)(1)(ii)(D).
10/23/1998	98-78 ; Rule 4.7(a) - Exemptive Relief for CPO;; No-Action The Division of Trading and Markets provided exemptive relief to a registered CPO to permit it to accept the investment of an individual who is not a QEP into a Rule 4.7 commodity pool operated by it and to invest more than ten percent of the pool's assets in other Rule 4.7(a) exempt pools, notwithstanding the participation of the non-QEP investor. The individual, a registered AP with more than ten years of experience in the financial services industry, is a senior portfolio manager for the CPO responsible for designing and managing the investment program of the pool. The relief was granted based upon representations that the non-QEP had consented in writing to being treated as a QEP for the purposes of Rule 4.7 and has direct access to all information pertinent to an investment in the pool.
10/22/1998	99-06 ; Rule 4.10 (d), Rules 4.21 and 4.22;; No-Action The Division of Trading and Markets denied a request for an interpretation that the definition of "pool" in Rule 4.10(d) did not apply to certain investee pools operated by two affiliated registered CPOs solely for the purpose of facilitating the trading of investor pools operated by the same CPOs. The Division exempted the CPOs from the disclosure and reporting requirements of Rules 4.21 and 4.22 with respect to the operation of the investee pools because the CPOs would otherwise be required to deliver Disclosure Documents and periodic reports to themselves.
10/22/1998	98-74 ; Rule 4.7;; No-Action CPO permitted to treat a non-QEP trust as a QEP based upon, among others, representations that the trustee and beneficiary of the trust was the Chairman of the Board of Directors, and a co-founder and principal, of the CPO.
10/08/1998	98-73 ; Section 4d of Act;; No-Action The Division of Trading and Markets declined a request for a no-action position with respect to future commission merchant (FCM) registration requirements from a party who intended to buy and sell gold bars with members of the public. The Division stated that the transactions in question may implicate more than the FCM registration requirements and could be subject to the exchange-trading requirements of the Act as well as to other provisions governing the offer or sale of futures contracts to members of the public.
09/29/1998	98-72 ; Section 4d of the Act;; No-Action The Division of Trading and Markets declined to reconsider its denial of a no-action request by an introducing broker (IB) that the IB be allowed to split commissions with grain elevators, based upon the futures and options trades placed by the grain elevators' customers, without the grain elevators first registering as IBs. The requesting IB had indicated that it would register as APs any employee of a grain elevator who handled any customer's futures or options trades. The Division cited concerns about the requesting IB's ability to supervise potential associated persons who were operating away from the IB's principal place of business and who would not be employees of the IB in declining to reconsider its previous position on this request.