D.C. Circuit Court Upholds Dodd-Frank Inspired CFTC Regulations Subjecting Mutual Funds That Invest in Commodities to CFTC Regulation

by BakerHostetler

In 2012, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), in response to Dodd-Frank, adopted new regulations to require mutual funds and other registered investment companies that exceed certain position levels in commodity futures and options to register with the CFTC, in addition to registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Investment Company Institute (ICI) and U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) promptly sued to enjoin the new regulations, contending that the CFTC had not met its procedural burdens under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The ICI and Chamber also contended that the new regulations were substantively flawed because they would impose duplicative and unnecessary burdens and costs on the funds industry and, ultimately, on fund investors.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit this week, in Investment Company Institute v. CFTC, rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and affirmed a lower court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the CFTC. As a result, mutual funds and their advisers will now be subject to dual registration with the SEC and CFTC if their commodities positions exceed the designated threshold.


The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) requires that Commodity Pool Operators (CPOs) register with the CFTC and adhere to regulatory requirements regarding disclosures, recordkeeping and reporting. The CEA defines CPOs as including any entity "engaged in a business that is of the nature of a commodity pool, investment trust, syndicate, or similar form of enterprise" that receives funds or securities "for the purpose of trading in commodity interests." The CEA, however, provides that the CFTC may exclude an entity from the term CPO if the CFTC determines that such exclusion will effectuate the CEA's purposes. (CEA § 1a(11)(A), (B).)

Pursuant to this authority, CFTC Regulation § 4.5 excludes various "otherwise regulated" entities, including investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Registered Investment Companies, or RICs) that meet various conditions. Prior to 2003, one of these conditions was that the RIC not exceed certain limits on commodities positions established not "solely for bona fide hedging purposes" (as defined in other CFTC regulations), specifically that it "not enter into commodity futures and commodity options contracts for which the aggregate initial margin and premiums exceed 5 percent of the fair market value of the [RIC]'s assets."

In 2000, Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which barred the CFTC from regulating most swaps. The CFTC thereafter amended Regulation § 4.5 to eliminate the five percent threshold on commodities positions. As a consequence, since 2003, most RICs have been able to hold substantial commodities positions, without the need for CFTC registration.

The financial crisis, however, led Congress to reverse course. In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), with the intent of increasing regulation of the securities and commodities markets. In particular, Dodd-Frank made more types of commodities transactions subject to CFTC oversight and gave the CFTC regulatory authority over swaps.

In 2012, the CFTC, citing its new "more robust mandate" under Dodd-Frank "to manage systemic risk and to ensure safe trading practices by entities involved in the derivatives markets," promulgated a revised Regulation § 4.5 and a new Regulation § 4.27, following a notice-and-comment period. Together, these regulations would largely return to the pre-2003 regulatory framework, re-imposing the five percent threshold on commodities positions (while also providing that a RIC could alternatively claim exclusion if the aggregate net notional value of its commodities positions was no more than 100 percent of "the liquidation value of the pool's portfolio"). In adopting the new regulations, the CFTC also sought comment on possible changes to certain disclosure requirements to harmonize them with corresponding SEC requirements.

As a result of the new CFTC regulations, most RICs that hold commodities positions in excess of the five percent threshold would be required to register with the CFTC, as was the case before 2003. Notably, however, in line with Dodd-Frank's grant to the CFTC of authority over swaps, the new regulations for the first time provide that swaps are to be included in determining whether a RIC exceeds the five percent threshold on commodities positions. As a result, a sizable number of RICs will now be unable to rely on the Regulation § 4.5 exclusion and will be required to register with the CFTC.


Prior to the CFTC's adoption of the new regulations, the ICI and Chamber submitted comment letters in opposition. Among other concerns, the ICI questioned "the need for a second level of regulation on registered investment companies, which are already subject to comprehensive regulation" under the Investment Company Act and other federal securities laws. The Chamber cited "the adverse effects on the mutual fund industry [and] the financial markets more generally" as a result of restrictions imposed on the funds' "legitimate use of futures contracts."

After adoption of the regulations, the ICI and Chamber jointly filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin them. The APA directs courts to set aside actions by agencies such as the CFTC that are found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." The plaintiffs claimed that the CFTC had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in violation of the APA, and had failed to comply with the analysis required under the CEA. On December 12, 2012, District Court Judge Beryl Howell rejected these claims, and granted summary judgment to the CFTC.

On appeal, the ICI and Chamber contended that the CFTC had violated the APA by (i) failing to address the CFTC's own prior rationale in 2003 for broadening the exclusions from the definition of CPO; (ii) inadequately evaluating the regulations' costs and benefits; (iii) including swaps in the trading threshold, restricting the definition of bona fide hedging and failing to justify the five percent threshold; and (iv) failing to provide an adequate opportunity for notice and comment.

In a decision issued June 25, 2013, the D.C. Circuit addressed and rejected each of the plaintiffs' contentions. Specifically: (i) the court found that the CFTC had articulated sufficient reason to reverse its 2003 action and again provide that positions exceeding the five percent threshold would trigger the CFTC registration requirement; (ii) the CFTC had engaged in an adequate cost-benefit analysis, including its determination that CFTC regulation of non-excluded RICs was necessary in addition to SEC regulation; (iii) the CFTC had offered reasoned explanations for the various particulars in the regulations that the plaintiffs had challenged; and (iv) the CFTC had provided adequate opportunity for comment on the proposed regulations. Overall, the court rejected many of the plaintiffs' contentions as "nothing more than... policy disagreement[s]" with the CFTC, which are an insufficient basis for setting aside agency action.


Plaintiffs have had a great run of success in recent years in persuading D.C. courts to set aside SEC and CFTC rules on grounds similar to those the ICI and Chamber urged here. These cases include last September's decision by the D.C. District Court, International Swaps and Derivatives Association v. CFTC, which vacated the CFTC's "position limits rule," based on the court's finding that the CFTC had misinterpreted certain Dodd-Frank amendments to the CEA.

This week's victory by the CFTC is a major boost for the government regulators, not only for their ability to defend their own rulemaking, but more importantly for the CFTC's regulatory and enforcement powers over the mutual fund industry. Under the new CFTC regulations found to be lawful, many mutual funds and their advisers will now need to register not only with the SEC, but also with the CFTC. The extent of the additional costs and other burdens to be imposed by this scheme of dual registration remains to be seen. In the meantime, the industry awaits the CFTC's issuance of additional rules intended to minimize such burdens by harmonizing CFTC and SEC requirements.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.