ARTICLE
13 September 2018

NFA Reminds Firms Of Swap Valuation Dispute Filing Requirements

HL
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Contributor

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is a global law firm trusted by clients to deliver on complex, high-stakes matters.

Operating at the intersection of business, finance, and government, we bring an unwavering commitment to client service and the decisive counsel that helps clients achieve exceptional results.

Consistently recognized for innovation across legal services, we combine sharp judgment with deep commercial perspective and intellectual rigor to address critical, cutting-edge challenges.

With 3,100 lawyers worldwide, we offer global scale with strong local insight in the markets that matter most. Our commitment extends beyond client work through pro bono activities, community investment, and responsible business practices.

The National Futures Association ("NFA") issued a reminder to swap dealers ("SDs") regarding their obligation to report swap valuation disputes.
United States Finance and Banking
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader are most popular:
  • within Intellectual Property, Government, Public Sector, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
  • with readers working within the Consumer Industries industries

The National Futures Association ("NFA") issued a reminder to swap dealers ("SDs") regarding their obligation to report swap valuation disputes.

The NFA emphasized that a reportable swap valuation dispute involving two SD counterparties requires each SD to submit a separate dispute notice with the NFA. If the NFA receives a dispute notice from only one SD going forward, the NFA will provide certain limited information to the non-reporting SD regarding the dispute (e.g., the filing SD's name, dispute reportable date, dispute type and disputed amount). Through this process, the NFA intends to find deficiencies in the non-reporting SD's swap valuation dispute submission process.

Commentary / Nihal Patel

The two-party notice requirement stands in contrast to nearly all other CFTC requirements on reporting swap transaction data, where parties agree as to who will be the "reporting counterparty." See, e.g., CFTC Reg. 45.8(d). The NFA did not explain its reasoning in the original interpretive notice. As previously observed, from a process perspective, the NFA requirement has never been fully considered.

In a cross-border context, the NFA never explained how its rule applies. If the NFA is looking to Reg. 23.502, it would make sense for the reporting requirement to be applied as the CFTC applies CFTC Rule 23.502 (i.e., as a "Transaction-Level Requirement" that does not apply to transactions between two non-U.S. entities), or, given that the dispute requirement also applies to margin disputes, as the CFTC (or prudential regulators) applies its margin requirements to cross-border transactions. But market participants have no clear guidance on this point. NFA should remedy this deficiency in light of CFTC Chairman Giancarlo's recent call for re-examining how the U.S. swap regulatory rules apply across borders.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More