
CFTC to sue AEP over false gas trades
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.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
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. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
SEC may lack legal clout to impose new dealer rule – Citadel
Adoption of quantitative dealer definition may require congressional changes to US Securities Exchange Act
US Basel endgame hits clearing with op risk capital charges
Dealers also fret about unlevel playing field compared with requirements in the EU
CFTC’s clearing house recovery rule splits industry
Some fear CCPs will fast-track recovery, others say any rule book will be ignored in emergency
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether
The Fed’s stress test models are inaccurate. Something has to change
First step for US regulator to improve its bank loss forecasts would be to open up its models to public scrutiny, argue two banking industry advocates