The Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight took a no-action position with respect to IBs guaranteed by a certain FCM, where the IBs would introduce ECP swap counterparties to each other, without opening or carrying customer accounts with the guarantor FCM. For uncleared swaps, no FCM would be involved in the transaction, and for cleared swaps, each counterparty would use an FCM for clearing that the counterparty had selected.

The Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight issued a “no-action” position from compliance with certain requirements of Regulation 1.57(a)(1), such that a guaranteed introducing broker could open and carry customer accounts with other than its guaranteeing futures commission merchant. Among other things, customers would be eligible contract participants and it was anticipated that the ultimate owner of the guaranteeing futures commission merchant would be the ultimate owner of an interest in the guaranteed introducing broker.

The Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight issued an interpretation that when an IB does no more than introduce a non-clearing FCM to a clearing FCM, and the non-clearing FCM then establishes an omnibus account with the clearing FCM, the requirement of Regulation 1.57(a)(1) that an IB open and carry each customer’s account with a carrying FCM on a fully-disclosed basis is not triggered, where: (1) the IB does not transmit trading orders fore the omnibus account to the clearing FCM; and (2) the IB does not accept funds from the customers whose accounts are maintained in the omnibus