CFTC Staff Letters

The Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight provided exemptive relief to a registered CPO and CTA from the books and records location requirements of Rules 4.23 and 4.33 such that the CPO/CTA may maintain its books and records at a branch office (also the main business office of an affiliated company) that provides operational support to the CPO/CTA.

The Division confirmed that under the specific facts represented to it, a firm that was required to be registered as an IB, and was so registered, would not also be required to register as a CTA in connection with providing certain services to its retail foreign exchange customers.

This letter withdraws relief previously granted in staff letters 02-22, 02-90 and 06-20. The previous letters provided “no-action” relief to registered securities broker-dealers and their registered representatives in connection with their offer and sale of certain futures contracts. The Division determined to withdraw the relief on a prospective basis based primarily on consumer protection issues including the uncertain treatment of customer funds in the event of insolvency of a broker.

The Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight provided no-action relief to the general partner of a commodity pool from registering as a CPO under Section 4m(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, and allowed an affiliated, registered CPO (“designee”) to serve as the CPO of the pool instead, where, among other things: (1) the general partner and the designee are under common ownership and control; (2) the general partner has delegated all of its management authority to the designee; (3) the general partner does not engage in the solicitation of investors for the pool and does not manage property of the pool; and (4) the general partner and designee executed and submitted to the Division a written acknowledgement of joint and several liability for any violation by either of them of the Act or the Commission’s regulations.

The Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight provided no-action relief to the general partner of a commodity pool from registering as a CPO under Section 4m(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, and allowed an affiliated, registered CPO (“designee”) to serve as the CPO of the pool instead, where, among other things: (1) the general partner and the designee are under common ownership and control; (2) the general partner has delegated all of its management authority to the designee; (3) the general partner does not engage in the solicitation of investors for the pool and does not manage property of the pool; and (4) the general partner and designee executed and submitted to the Division a written acknowledgement of joint and several liability for any violation by either of them of the Act or the Commission’s regulations in connection with the operation of the pool.

No-Action Relief Request of Turkish Derivatives Exchange in Connection with the Offer and Sale in the United States of its Futures Contract Based on the ISE-30 Stock Index.

The CPO of a pool that had previously been granted relief from the certification requirement for fiscal year 2009 informed DCIO that the pool had ceased operations subsequent to the issuance of relief and requested relief from the certification requirement for the pool’s final annual report. Because the facts were substantially identical to those that formed the basis for the issuance of the prior relief and the CPO submitted waivers from the pool’s two participants, DCIO granted the relief requested.

The CPOs of a pool requested an extension of time for the filing of the pool’s 2009 annual report beyond June 29, 2010, due to a delay in the receipt of financial statements from investee pools. DCIO determined that the interests of participants in receiving timely information outweighed the CPOs’ hardship and DENIED the request.

The CPO of four pools organized as Delaware Series Limited Liability Companies requested an interpretation of the use of the term “pool” in Part 4 of the Commission’s regulations to include the individual series of a series limited liability company. The CPO also requested relief to use a tripartite disclosure document that limited certain disclosures to the offered series. DCIO declined to expand the definition of the term “pool” to include a series of a series limited liability company. DCIO did, however, grant exemptive relief and permitted the CPO to file and distribute a disclosure document that provided disclosures regarding the pool as a whole in the first part and disclosures only with respect to the offered series in a second part. DCIO required the CPO to disclose the manner of organization of the pool and the fact that series other than the offered series existed and that information regarding other series was available upon request. Additionally, DCIO required the CPO to make certain representations to NFA prior to filing such disclosure document and to ensure that both parts of the disclosure document be distributed to prospective participants together. DCIO further required the CPO to comply with the prescribed risk disclosure statement set forth in Regulation 4.24 and to present the required information in the forepart of the first part of the document, but permitted customization.

The CPO of a pool that had previously received exemptive relief to provide a 14-month certified Annual Report for the period from the inception of trading in November 2009 through December 31, 2010 requested relief from the certification requirement of Regulation 4.22 with respect to the pool’s final Annual Report. Because the CPO’s prior relief was conditioned upon the provision of a certified Annual Report, the CPO was required to seek exemptive relief where it otherwise would not be necessary. The CPO attached waivers from the pool’s participants evidencing their consent to the provision of an uncertified final Annual Report. DCIO determined that the granting of relief was not inconsistent with the purposes of Part 4 or the public interest and therefore granted the relief requested.