CFTC to sue AEP over false gas trades
Ohio-based utility American Electric Power (AEP) has been charged with reporting 2,800 false natural gas trades to energy price index companies, such as Platts, and attempting to manipulate natural gas prices. The charges, levied by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), mark the second time that a US regulator has sought to litigate, rather than settle, such a case - the first instance being against bankrupt energy trader Enron. Each alleged violation could carry a $120,000 civil penalty.
AEP said that after learning in September 2002 of false reporting of gas price information it undertook its own internal investigation of gas price reporting practices. AEP determined that five then-current employees had submitted inaccurate gas trading information to trade publications. The company terminated the five employees' contracts, self-reported the incident to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the CFTC, publicly announced the employee terminations and put into place procedures to prevent a recurrence of the inaccurate submission of gas trading information.
“We have been co-operating with the CFTC in an attempt to seek resolution to this matter,” said Jeffrey Cross, AEP’s general counsel. “While the possibility of civil action always existed, we are surprised the CFTC chose to file at this time. We still believe that a settlement is possible and we are open to that possibility.”
US regulators have settled with a number of energy companies following charges of attempted market manipulation. Earlier this month, for example, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing agreed to pay $28 million to settle CFTC charges that it manipulated the natural gas market between 2000 and 2002.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Market players warn against European repo clearing mandate
Regulators urged to await outcome of US mandate and be wary of risks to government bond liquidity
Esma won’t soften regulatory expectations for cloud and AI
CCP supervisory chair signals heightened scrutiny of third-party risk and operational resilience
BPI says SR 11-7 should go; bank model risk chiefs say ‘no’
Lobby group wants US guidance repealed; practitioners want consistent model supervision and audit
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising